Re: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users

[Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>]

On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 17:43 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:38:29 +0100, Bodo Eggert said:
> 
> > Maybe it's possible to extend the semantics of umount -l to change all
> > cwds under that mountpoint to be deleted directories which will no
> > longer cause the mountpoint to be busy (e.g. by redirecting them to a
> > special inode on initramfs). Most applications can cope with that (if
> > not, they're buggy),
> 
> You mean that a program is *buggy* if it does:
> 
> 	cwd("/home/user");
> 	/* do some stuff while we get our cwd ripped out from under us */
> 	file = open("./.mycconfrc");
> 
> and expects the file to be opened in /home/user???

Yes, of course.  Any program that doesn't check the return value of a
system call is buggy.  Unless it really, really doesn't care - clearly
not the case here.

Lee