From: esqueleto@tusofona.com
Subject: Re: Detectiong Network and umount / mount NFS
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:46:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1114177606.42690046617bd@webmail.tusofona.com>
References: <1114027379.4266b57354785@webmail.tusofona.com>  <4266C21D.9030305@RedHat.com>  <1114038052.4266df245e54e@webmail.tusofona.com>  <1114042784.17214.11.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>  <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504211009380.3889@maggie.lkpg.cendio.se>  <1114088708.10727.9.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>  <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504212119170.16285@maggie.lkpg.cendio.se>  <1114118453.12750.44.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>  <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504220857510.28175@maggie.lkpg.cendio.se> <1114176705.10450.43.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Return-path: <nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net>
Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net)
	by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
	id 1DOyUg-0007XU-Vy
	for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:46:54 -0700
Received: from [81.92.210.10] (helo=agata.100limite.pt)
	by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
	(Exim 4.41)
	id 1DOyUf-0000V2-7A
	for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:46:54 -0700
To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
In-Reply-To: <1114176705.10450.43.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs>,
	<mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development,
	interoperability,
	and testing. <nfs.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Post: <mailto:nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs>,
	<mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=nfs>

Quoting Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>:
> > In my opinion, an "unkillable" process is a bug.

It's my opinion too

> That's entirely _your_ personal opinion. A lot of other people will
> argue that causing processes to lose data is a bug. In order to
> accommodate both camps, there are mount options to allow for one or the
> other behaviour, there are manpage entries, and there are FAQ entries.

This is not only an personal opinion ... a process that cannot be killed =
it's
not "well developed".


(())
Esqueleto
Odivelas - Portugal

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3D6595&alloc_id=3D14396&op=3Dclick
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs