Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:29:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:29:47 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:51726 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 07:29:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 13:29:19 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Alexander Viro Cc: Pavel Machek , Jakob ?stergaard , Ville Herva , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: force umount [was Re: [STATUS 2.5] January 18, 2002] Message-ID: <20020124122919.GA2135@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> In-Reply-To: <20020123113122.GC965@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Can I kill the processes accessing busy > > filesystems? [That was big point of force umount, I believe.] > > Huh? If process is killable - it's killable. What does it have to > --force? Following situation used to be common and "not a bug": process a tries to read /nfs/foo, but nfs server dies. kill -9 a does not kill a. It used to be "not a bug" before. Can we declare it a bug after umount /nfs --force? Pavel -- Casualities in World Trade Center: ~3k dead inside the building, cryptography in U.S.A. and free speech in Czech Republic. - 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/