From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752011AbZH0LzS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:55:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751818AbZH0LzS (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:55:18 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:49602 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791AbZH0LzR (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:55:17 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:54:12 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao Cc: Christoph Hellwig , t-sato@yk.jp.nec.com, m-hamaguchi@ys.jp.nec.com, Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eric Sandeen Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] filesystem freeze: fix sys_umount induced perpetual freeze Message-ID: <20090827115412.GA8326@lst.de> References: <4A94C151.8020900@oss.ntt.co.jp> <20090826173839.GA20175@lst.de> <4A965BD1.205@oss.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A965BD1.205@oss.ntt.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Spam-Score: 0 () Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 07:11:29PM +0900, Fernando Luis V?zquez Cao wrote: > Thank you for the pointers. I gave those patches a spin, but it seems > the umount case is not being tackled. I suggest rejecting the umount > for frozen filesystems. What do you think? > > I will be replying to this email with a forward port of your patches > along with my own patches that fix the locking for umount and add a > new ioctl to check the freeze state of the filesystem (this is helpful > to create clean resource agents for HA solutions). I think we should just reject the umount for a forzen filesystem with -EBUSY like I do for remount in those patches. I somehow thought I did this but didn't. Is that good for your use case?