From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S933056AbXCQE1b@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933056AbXCQE1b (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:27:31 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933082AbXCQE1b
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:27:31 -0400
Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:60159 "EHLO mail.goop.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933056AbXCQE1a (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 17 Mar 2007 00:27:30 -0400
Message-ID: <45FB6E32.3050009@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:27:30 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com>
CC: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: forced umount?
References: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Is this forced umount work even considered worthwhile by the greater
> Linux community?  Is anyone actively working on this?

Have a look at all the discussion about revoke/frevoke on lkml over the
last week or two.

    J