From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262125AbULaRjJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:39:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262126AbULaRjJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:39:09 -0500 Received: from outmail1.freedom2surf.net ([194.106.33.237]:39834 "EHLO outmail.freedom2surf.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262125AbULaRip (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:38:45 -0500 From: William Organization: Designed4u.net To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:41:02 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: wh@designed4u.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412311741.02864.wh@designed4u.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi I am a linux desktop user. I love linux and all the wonderfull open-source/free software that comes with it... blah, blah, blah :). The following comments and suggestions about umount() stem from personal experience and are meant as friendly feedback for all you clever people. (I wish I understook how the kernel works) Regularly, when attempting to umount() a filesystem I receive 'device is busy' errors. The only way (that I have found) to solve these problems is to go on a journey into processland and kill all the guilty ones that have tied themselves to the filesystem concerned. In order to help solve this problem is it possible to modify the behaviour of the linux kernel. In my opinion, in order for linux to be trully user friendly, "a umount() should NEVER fail" (even if the device containing the filesystem is no longuer attached to the system). The kernel should do it's best to satisfy the umount request and cleanup. Maybe the kernel could try some of the following: 1) if the device containing the filesystem (for local filesystems) is no longer physicaly attached to the system: revoke all process access to the filesystem and umount. Notify umount that the filesystem was not cleanly umounted. 2) notify all processes attached to the filesystem that they must release control of it. 3) the processes may respond to the notifications and request time to clean up in order to read/write any remaining data. 4) processes that do not respond within a given time-frame should have their filesystem access revoked. 5) once all the clean up has finnished... umount the filesystem..... I am not subscribed to the list so please email me on wh@designed4u.net Kind Regards William Heyland the new "a umount() should NEVER fail" campaign launched by me on december the 31 of 2004. Just in time for new year ;-) PS: I am currently teaching myself about kernels in general and am hoping to start contributing to linux soon. But until then... if the kernel can't handle a umount() then nothing in userspace can do any better... rant, rant, rant, ... make umount() smarter.... Please?