From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261745AbUEFG7A (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:59:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261764AbUEFG67 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:58:59 -0400 Received: from [66.35.79.110] ([66.35.79.110]:22425 "EHLO www.hockin.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261745AbUEFG66 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 02:58:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 23:58:56 -0700 From: Tim Hockin To: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: lazy-umount cwd and .. Message-ID: <20040506065856.GA21004@hockin.org> References: <20040506044433.GA13933@hockin.org> <20040506064617.GQ17014@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040506064617.GQ17014@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 07:46:17AM +0100, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk wrote: > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:44:33PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote: > > Should I bother to polish this patch off and send it, or is it just not > > something we want to care about? > > No. This is simply wrong - one of the situations when you want lazy-umount > is getting a stuck filesystem (e.g. NFS mounted hard) and wanting to get > it out of the way, so that stuff it's mounted on could be unmounted clean. > > So we definitely don't want to keep anything pinned down. I'll buy that. I guess it's not worth dreaming up something else to make that be less surprising to apps with cwd in a lazy umounted mount. Cheers.