From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n91ED40j098655 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:13:04 -0500 Received: from knox.decisionsoft.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 1FA0D496F65 for ; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from knox.decisionsoft.com (knox-be.decisionsoft.com [87.194.172.100]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id DaosbWWVPlOls2D2 for ; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AC4B940.6010004@corefiling.com> Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:14:24 +0100 From: Stuart Rowan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Two XFS involving stack traces from Debian's 2.6.26-2-amd64 References: <4AC45B72.9060500@decisionsoft.co.uk> <200910011244.37489@zmi.at> In-Reply-To: <200910011244.37489@zmi.at> Reply-To: strr@corefiling.com List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Michael Monnerie Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Michael Monnerie wrote, on 01/10/09 11:44: > On Donnerstag 01 Oktober 2009 Stuart Rowan wrote: >> umount /tmp/$from ; /sbin/lvremove -f /dev/$vgroup/snap-shot ; rmdir >> /tmp/$from > > Why don't you > umount /tmp/$from&& /sbin/lvremove -f /dev/$vgroup/snap-shot&& rmdir > /tmp/$from > from your script so this won't happen again? > Or make a loop around umount? > > mfg zmi Thanks, I've changed it as you suggested. It's true a second call to umount does unmount it (well it disappears from /proc/mounts anyway). However lvremove still does not succeed because it still believes the volume to be open. Cheers, Stu. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs