From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: forced umount? Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:46:20 -0400 Message-ID: <460A7FBC.600@cfl.rr.com> References: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com> <45FB6E32.3050009@goop.org> <170fa0d20703162237m1023cbd2o8ccf9e464c53f4a0@mail.gmail.com> <84144f020703170353y4490d0dcr24352c291c96300b@mail.gmail.com> <46083C79.1080108@cfl.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mike Snitzer , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Pekka J Enberg Return-path: Received: from iriserv.iradimed.com ([72.242.190.170]:16344 "EHLO iradimed.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752245AbXC1O4I (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:56:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Pekka J Enberg wrote: > We never want to _abort_ pending updates only pending reads. So, even with > revoke(), we need to be careful which is why we do do_fsync() in > generic_revoke_file() to make sure pending updates are flushed before we > declare the inode revoked. > > But, I haven't looked at forced unmount that much so there may be other > issues I am not aware of. For the purposes of this thread we _do_ want to abort pending updates to force the system to give up on a broken block device rather than block a bunch of tasks in the D state forever.