atom feed15 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-fsRe: umount -f implementation
FromSent OnAttachments
Rick MacklemJun 28, 2009 4:59 pm 
Nathanael HoyleJun 28, 2009 5:31 pm 
David G LawrenceJun 28, 2009 9:52 pm 
Attilio RaoJun 29, 2009 2:55 am 
Rick MacklemJun 29, 2009 7:38 am 
Rick MacklemJun 29, 2009 8:16 am 
Bruce EvansJun 29, 2009 10:52 am 
Rick C. PettyJun 29, 2009 4:26 pm 
Rick MacklemJun 30, 2009 9:00 am 
Attilio RaoJun 30, 2009 9:07 am 
Kostik BelousovJun 30, 2009 12:32 pm 
Rick MacklemJun 30, 2009 1:03 pm 
Kirk McKusickJun 30, 2009 2:58 pm 
Julian H. StaceyJun 30, 2009 5:48 pm 
Rick MacklemJul 1, 2009 10:26 am 
Subject:Re: umount -f implementation
From:Rick Macklem (rmac@uoguelph.ca)
Date:Jul 1, 2009 10:26:51 am
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-fs

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Julian H. Stacey wrote:

Kirk McKusick wrote:

forced unmounts. The gentle force (-f) and the brute force (-F) unmount.

-F Would also be nice for devd.conf detach, for when people forget & pull a USB stick without unmounting first. Better a corrupt stick than a crashed OS.

All I'll add is, for the experimental nfs client, if both semantics are desired (and, imho they are), there will need to be separate flags to indicate whether or not to terminate RPCs in progress.

So, it seems that there is interest in a separate "umount -F" to handle the case of failed storage (disk subsystem, NAS server down,...). Is there anyone who is opposed to my pursuing this after FreeBSD-CURRENT branches from 8? (I can do the experimental nfs client + some testing. Hopefully others can help with the generic VFS issues and other file systems.)

rick, who obviously doesn't have as good a memory as Kirk's:-) ps: Unfortunately Solaris uses "-F" for something entirely different, so feel free to suggest other flag values if you think that is a concern.