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 04:38:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:38:48 -0400 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:10488 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:38:37 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:38:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Alexander Viro To: Aaron Lehmann cc: Ville Herva , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Forced umount (was lazy umount) In-Reply-To: <20010917000325.A25189@vitelus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Sep 2001, Aaron Lehmann wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 09:57:47AM +0300, Ville Herva wrote: > > > Basically, I want a 'kill -KILL' for filesystems. > > > > This gets my vote too... > > Me too Look at it that way: we have two actions that need to be done upon umount. 1) detach it from the mountpoint(s) 2) shut it down For the latter we need to have no active IO on that fs _and_ nothing that could initiate such IO. We can separate #1 and #2, letting fs shutdown happen when it's no longer busy. That's what MNT_DETACH does. What you are asking for is different - you want fs-wide revoke(). That's all nice and dandy, but it's an independent problem and it will take a _lot_ of work. Including work in fs drivers. It _is_ worth doing, but it's 2.5 stuff (along with normal revoke(2)). IMNSHO we really should separate the stuff acting on mount tree from the stuff acting on filesystems. A lot of confusion comes from the places where we don't do that - see the "per-mountpoint read-only" thread couple of weeks ago for other examples.