Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:47:12 +0100
From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk
To: Daniel McNeil <daniel@osdl.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>, Andy <genanr@emsphone.com>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] retry force umount (was Re: NFS and umount -f)
Message-ID: <20040623234712.GM12308@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20040608155414.GA3975@thumper2> <1086710357.3896.11.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1088034175.2319.11.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1088034175.2319.11.camel@ibm-c.pdx.osdl.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 919
Lines: 17

On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 04:42:55PM -0700, Daniel McNeil wrote:
> This works for me on 2.6.7 as well.  However, I would get EBUSY back
> if processes were hung doing nfs operations to the downed server.
> The processes would get unstuck and get EIO, but the umount would
> still fail.  Doing a 2nd umount -f with no processes waiting for
> the server would succeed.  This patch retries force umounts in
> the kernel an extra time after giving them time to wake up and
> get out of the kernel.  It doesn't seem quite right to fail
> a bunch of nfs operations and leave the file system mounted.

Is there any reason to do that in the kernel?  What, umount(8) can't do the
same?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/