From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:9804 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751744Ab0JMS55 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:57:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:58:34 -0400 From: Jeff Layton To: Steve Dickson Cc: Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , Linux NFS Mailing List Subject: Re: whither NFS umount? Message-ID: <20101013145834.2eeb3ae6@corrin.poochiereds.net> In-Reply-To: <20101013145601.468acc2a@corrin.poochiereds.net> References: <678C897C-DECE-49C1-AFC4-B57CF3A09385@oracle.com> <1286903046.24878.13.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <20101012151826.76b75f52@corrin.poochiereds.net> <1286912649.1956.19.camel@heimdal.trondhjem.org> <4CB5EF15.5030003@RedHat.com> <20101013141317.66f23906@corrin.poochiereds.net> <4CB5FE65.3090409@RedHat.com> <20101013145601.468acc2a@corrin.poochiereds.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:56:01 -0400 Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:45:57 -0400 > Steve Dickson wrote: > > > I would say send the UMNT, since it does not cause any pain to send it > > verses the pain that could be cause by not sending it... > > > > This is a perfect example of fixing something that is not > > broken... We can put our energy in better place that worrying > > about things like this... IMHO... > > But it *is* broken. As Chuck pointed out, the main problem is that mtab > handling is broken on remounts. That's a real problem that needs to be > fixed. > > I agree that our time is better spent elsewhere. I just think that we > ought to make that happen by eliminating the unnecessary umount helper. > The less code that we need to maintain, the better... > Sorry, let me clarify... we'll still need to fix -o remount handling in mount.nfs. At the same time though, we can reduce our maintenance burden by getting rid of umount.nfs. I just don't think it serves much of a purpose these days... -- Jeff Layton