From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933365AbXCQFYx (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:24:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933351AbXCQFYx (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:24:53 -0400 Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.42]:57162 "EHLO vms042pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933342AbXCQFYw (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:24:52 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:24:40 -0400 From: Gene Heskett Subject: Re: forced umount? In-reply-to: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: "Mike Snitzer" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <200703170124.42956.gene.heskett@gmail.com> Organization: Organization? very little MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-disposition: inline References: <170fa0d20703162106v47dc13e1u1ae5381576f372ed@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 17 March 2007, Mike Snitzer wrote: >I'm interested in understanding the state of Linux with regard to >_really_ forcing a filesystem to unmount. > >There is a (stale) project at OSDL that has various implementations: >http://developer.osdl.org/dev/fumount/ > >Its fairly clear that these efforts (e.g. badfs patches) haven't been >given serious consideration for upstream inclusion. Do others see >value in the ability to _reliably_ force a umount by having Linux >discard all IOs, open files, dirty inode buffers, etc of a "bad" >blockdevice? The goal is to not impact the availability or integrity >of Linux while doing so. > >Is this forced umount work even considered worthwhile by the greater >Linux community? Is anyone actively working on this? Having been 'caught out' on this subject more than a few times, usually by shutting down a remotely located box that was mounted via smb or cifs, and found the only way to get sanity back to the rest of the system was a hard reset of every other box that was also sharing that mount, I would think this is a worthwhile project. Take that as a yes vote, from somebody who isn't franchised to vote on it in the first place, I'm just a user, usually playing the part of the canary in the coal mine. >Mike -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) QOTD: "There may be no excuse for laziness, but I'm sure looking."