From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: unmount -l does not send unmount request to the server Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:22:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4BA3DD08.20209@oracle.com> References: <4B530EFF.9000205@inria.fr> <7123090D-5BB9-4CF5-A024-56345DD8136F@oracle.com> <4B9D49CC.8080603@inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Linux NFSv4 mailing list , Linux NFS Mailing List To: Guillaume Rousse Return-path: Received: from acsinet11.oracle.com ([141.146.126.233]:18569 "EHLO acsinet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751092Ab0CSUYg (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:24:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4B9D49CC.8080603-MZpvjPyXg2s@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/14/2010 04:40 PM, Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Le 19/01/2010 17:37, Chuck Lever a =E9crit : >> As far as I understand it, "-l" means the kernel will do the local >> detach from the system's file name space whenever there are no more >> users (ie entirely asynchronously). I don't think umount2(MNT_DETAC= H) >> indicates whether the kernel was able to completely unmount that fil= e >> system by the time the call returns, so there's perhaps no way for >> umount.nfs to know whether it should send the UMNT request. If the >> server is slow or unresponsive, that file system won't be unmounted >> until long after the umount.nfs command has exited. >> >> This shouldn't be much of a big deal, since the server's rmtab is >> "ornamental" according to the man page. No one should rely on it be= ing >> accurate. >> >> A possible way to fix this is to have the kernel send the UMNT. > It makes sense, but it doesn't seem to trigger much interest :) > > Should I open a bug somewhere, to ensure the issue won't be forgotten= ? You might consider filing a bug in the NFSv4 bugzilla on linux-nfs.org. --=20 chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com