From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750789AbWISEzV (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:55:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751665AbWISEzU (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:55:20 -0400 Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:63940 "EHLO out1.smtp.messagingengine.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbWISEzT (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:55:19 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: ZqovtLZIOIliOJ+q3jIxBf1AUY0CKruLwMgJVKhQ0nDw 1158641718 Subject: Re: [PATCH] autofs4 - zero timeout prevents shutdown From: Ian Kent To: Andrew Morton Cc: autofs mailing list , Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel In-Reply-To: <20060918213853.d4628ba0.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20060918211123.84e583cf.akpm@osdl.org> <1158640433.3003.20.camel@raven.themaw.net> <20060918213853.d4628ba0.akpm@osdl.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:55:10 +0800 Message-Id: <1158641710.3003.29.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 21:38 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:33:52 +0800 > Ian Kent wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 21:11 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:48:15 +0800 (WST) > > > Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > > > If the timeout of an autofs mount is set to zero then umounts > > > > are disabled. This works fine, however the kernel module checks > > > > the expire timeout and goes no further if it is zero. This is > > > > not the right thing to do at shutdown as the module is passed > > > > an option to expire mounts regardless of their timeout setting. > > > > > > Is this a new feature, or a regression since ? > > > > It's a regression which I must have introduced a long time ago. I can go > > back and check the kernels if you'd like more specific info. > > > > It should work this way and a recent report alerted me to it. > > > > Well.. I'm trying to work out if it's a 2.6.18 thing or whether we can > hold it over. I had a quick look and it appears to be present as far back as 2002/06 in 2.4. I'm a bit puzzled why I haven't seen it before as I'm sure I've tested this over the years, never the less it looks so clearly wrong to me know. It's a bug fix and given it's been around so long, not a widely used. Personally I'd like to get it into 2.6.18. As always I'm happy with whatever decision you make. Ian