Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172]:46725 "EHLO ns3.lanforge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757002Ab3JOS3w (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:29:52 -0400 Received: from [192.168.100.236] (firewall.candelatech.com [70.89.124.249]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns3.lanforge.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r9FITpFW011263 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:29:51 -0700 Message-ID: <525D899F.5010604@candelatech.com> Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 11:29:51 -0700 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: 'umount -f /mnt/foo' fails if server IP is gone. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Is 'umount -f' supposed to always work, even if the file server goes away? I have a user's system that just hangs forever in this case. Could be local changes we have made, but I'm curious about the expected behaviour before I go digging too deep... Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com