From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: whither NFS umount? Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:31:27 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB6090F.60301@RedHat.com> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Trond Myklebust , Chuck Lever , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Jeff Layton Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59753 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752476Ab0JMTbb (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:31:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101013145601.468acc2a-4QP7MXygkU+dMjc06nkz3ljfA9RmPOcC@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/13/2010 02:56 PM, 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. Fine... Lets just focus on that issue... > > 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... In general I agree... but removing functionality (i.e. umount.nfs) can cause more pain than just leaving things as is... steved.