From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:51:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:50:50 -0400 Received: from adsl-209-182-168-213.value.net ([209.182.168.213]:8976 "EHLO draco.foogod.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:50:41 -0400 Message-ID: <3BA69D84.3020909@foogod.com> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:04:04 -0700 From: Alex Stewart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20010913 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xavier Bestel CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Forced umount (was lazy umount) In-Reply-To: <3BA68562.6030806@foogod.com> <1000768993.20059.5.camel@nomade> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Xavier Bestel wrote: > le mar 18-09-2001 at 01:21 Alex Stewart a écrit : > [...] > >>I see no reason why a properly functioning system should ever need to >>truly force a umount. Under normal conditions, if one really needs to >>do an emergency umount, it should be possible to use fuser/kill/etc to >>clean up any processes using the filesystem from userland and then >>perform a normal umount to cleanly unmount the filesystem in question [...] > > Imagine you have a cdrom mounted with process reading it. You may want > to eject this cdrom without killing all processes, but just make them > know that there's an error somewhere, go read something else. > So it won't kill your shells, Nautilus/Konqueror, etc. Ok, I should have made my terms more clear. I see no reason why a properly functioning system should *need* to force a umount. There's a difference between "need" and "want". What you're talking about is a convenience (and I admitted that the patch would make some things more convenient), but not a necessity. With decently written software you should be able to simply go to the relevant programs and tell them to stop using the filesystem before you unmount it. All this does is make that process a little less tedious. My point was that I agree that the proposed patch is nice, and I'd like to see something like it included, but considering it's primarily a convenience rather than addressing something you can't do other ways, I think it can probably wait until 2.5 at this point (at least assuming 2.6 doesn't take as long to get out the door as 2.4 did). As far as fixing the real problem I was bringing up originally (which the patch doesn't do), I also think it'll require a large enough change that although I'd like to see it sooner, I can understand holding off until 2.5. -alex