Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users | From | Greg Stark <> | Date | 15 Jan 2005 23:39:00 -0500 |
| |
William <wh@designed4u.net> writes:
> In my opinion, in order for linux to be trully user friendly, "a umount() > should NEVER fail" (even if the device containing the filesystem is no > longuer attached to the system). The kernel should do it's best to satisfy > the umount request and cleanup. Maybe the kernel could try some of the > following:
What you're asking for is for the umount -f option to be supported. This isn't a new fangled idea. BSD supported has supported it since sometime in the last millennium. Seriously, it's pretty basic functionality and really ought to be supported.
The semantics of umount -f are simpler than you make it sound. It just unmounts the file system normally and revokes any file descriptors for that file system. Any further i/o on those file descriptors just gets an error (EINVAL I expect).
This is one of my biggest pet peeves about Linux.
-- greg
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |