From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:28:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:28:06 -0400 Received: from AMontpellier-201-1-1-55.abo.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.31.55]:65036 "EHLO awak") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:28:01 -0400 Subject: Re: Forced umount (was lazy umount) From: Xavier Bestel To: Alex Stewart Cc: Tigran Aivazian , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <3BA68562.6030806@foogod.com> In-Reply-To: <3BA68562.6030806@foogod.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution/0.13.99+cvs.2001.09.17.19.25 (Preview Release) Date: 18 Sep 2001 01:23:12 +0200 Message-Id: <1000768993.20059.5.camel@nomade> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org le mar 18-09-2001 at 01:21 Alex Stewart a écrit : [...] > I see no reason why a properly functioning system should ever need to > truly force a umount. Under normal conditions, if one really needs to > do an emergency umount, it should be possible to use fuser/kill/etc to > clean up any processes using the filesystem from userland and then > perform a normal umount to cleanly unmount the filesystem in question > (or, with lazy umount, this could conceivably even be done in the > reverse order). The only reason for really-I-mean-it-forcing a umount > is if there is some problem which has caused one or more processes to > get permanently stuck in a state where they can't be killed (i.e. D > state), and thus can't release their hold on the filesystem. Imagine you have a cdrom mounted with process reading it. You may want to eject this cdrom without killing all processes, but just make them know that there's an error somewhere, go read something else. So it won't kill your shells, Nautilus/Konqueror, etc. Xav