Re: force umount [was Re: [STATUS 2.5] January 18, 2002]

From: Denis Vlasenko (vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua)
Date: Thu Jan 24 2002 - 12:00:12 EST

Next message: Anton Altaparmakov: "2.5.3-pre4 panics on boot )-:"
Previous message: Andy Carlson: "Re: via-rhine timeouts"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "force umount [was Re: [STATUS 2.5] January 18, 2002]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> > > Can I kill the processes accessing busy
> > > filesystems? [That was big point of force umount, I believe.]
> >
> > Huh? If process is killable - it's killable. What does it have to
> > --force?
>
> Following situation used to be common and "not a bug":
>
> process a tries to read /nfs/foo, but nfs server dies.
>
> kill -9 a does not kill a.
>
> It used to be "not a bug" before. Can we declare it a bug after umount
> /nfs --force?

After more than a year on lkml I still don't understand why it's not a bug.
Anyway, I always mount NFS with hard,intr and my processes are killable...

--
vda
-
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/

Next message: Anton Altaparmakov: "2.5.3-pre4 panics on boot )-:"
Previous message: Andy Carlson: "Re: via-rhine timeouts"
In reply to: Pavel Machek: "force umount [was Re: [STATUS 2.5] January 18, 2002]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:00:20 EST