Re: Samba FS

Jim B (vader@stargate.kersur.net)
Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:01:12 -0400


This topic just went through the debian-user list. Seems that the general
consensus is that using a regular "umount" on it first will allow you to
unmount those smb shares. IIRC, after doing the umount they ran smbumount
and it worked.

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk>
To: Forever shall I be. <zinx@linuxfreak.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Samba FS

> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:33:21PM -0500, Forever shall I be. wrote:
>
> > I just had a nasty run-in with the darker side of smbfs... It seems that
> > if I'm disconnected prematurely I can not unmount the mounted samba
> > filesystem, and all processes that try to access it go 'D', and can't be
> > killed via kill -9... I'd REALLY like to have those processes gone and
> > the filesystem unmounted _without_ rebooting if possible... Any tips
> > would be appreciated..
>
> Ugh. Can you look at WCHAN in the ps output and see where they're stuck
(xref
> the number with your System.map) -- or is this just going to give the
address
> of __down, I wonder? Which kernel version, BTW?
>
> --
> Never count your chickens before they rip your lips off
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/