From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Wed Jun 29 04:55:01 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03C68B841F0 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etnapierala@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA1B12B67 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:55:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from etnapierala@gmail.com) Received: by mail-wm0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 187so30981320wmz.1 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=9+kfQ63hrG44GFP/Qbn9CM/tyBcJ7vgtGmUSMJNOy6I=; b=wrFJ50uTZSL4+7/0+oGREHcOtxYPmccmanZiWbn2JSn9o8uamAIEwRvrV/Ti3UyRwB hs2N3bJeKViE8kD9Xm1hPE3luJD5UA9cedjwFXGKFA4gf9lEFiULqJ1ld+tIbmnmFi2g 5ttuap5suLz7Jg7IkGgauPkMlEVFeEZGsnTpKhwQ0l6pxHlQVsduExqxJH74Tcikbrd4 DuBivnqMF0YpJCTGL3i/HfoyUGunB/JN/YLTswbaetonUtl9rP+kaU+goDnQS/IhMbA7 45HIFEBcpwNWIt9JICYloTUzAshUKHYSKt+UWCv+KOqhUFCcMVO/jDI/pis6OtYsmPGF QdiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=9+kfQ63hrG44GFP/Qbn9CM/tyBcJ7vgtGmUSMJNOy6I=; b=QEp6UvcV88y+04VMhqURfFSCXEcQQw5hbglnjXQ6Yln7ibWxgXzMK8Y8p6XqViLtOK 6iNhauwPWhJm7wD/YkMqrVHwB+DRmWzQTQrMlGrxxERu+ZEIDno5UdQKC8ItJFsunYMM 0DK+wgA3Eh5Yc/hY9yu7nXsbqP3GNQ30BufV6ujOo9DMGHsCvZI+M5b/r3DciLyZiKgL HtYik/5oj1MkecgXUbSrF/OSoGCkBqUWt9reJ9Nu0TxnvcUjFFFWjPrhWet8HRfSVQ1f zJZJeROUy3TDCylVm1yxuA2DIpOYV7vLQ2c4Yeaz69k5fSCfFqDbeA82ORIXd57XFqub k99w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKBBbXqwC8bQkKMsTEOi+EYQV/eJIDUcoLrhjkEtcXcMVbclT2u33fkugoCHN0p5w== X-Received: by 10.194.191.135 with SMTP id gy7mr6313912wjc.125.1467176098151; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brick (adjg143.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl. [79.184.214.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ib10sm1596066wjb.31.2016.06.28.21.54.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Edward_Tomasz_Napiera=C5=82a?= Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:32:03 +0200 From: Edward Tomasz =?utf-8?Q?Napiera=C5=82a?= To: Mateusz Guzik Cc: Hongjiang Zhang , "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: ufs freeze does not work Message-ID: <20160629043203.GA82400@brick> Mail-Followup-To: Mateusz Guzik , Hongjiang Zhang , "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" References: <20160628065432.GA20716@brick> <20160628185523.GA82035@brick> <20160628195731.GA21323@dft-labs.eu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160628195731.GA21323@dft-labs.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 04:55:01 -0000 On 0628T2157, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:55:23PM +0200, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: > > As I said, the suspension is released when the ufssuspend file descriptor > > gets closed - which is what happens when the calling process exits. It's > > a protection mechanism, to avoid the situation where the process malfunction > > (eg a crash) would leave the system in unrecoverable (suspended) state. > > > > You probably want your process to just execute another one, and wait until > > it exits. > > > > The example with freeze -f strongly hints this is supposed to work as a > drop in replacement for linux scripts. > > As such, maybe ufs should grow another operation which does not > automagically unfreeze. I'm not sure it's a good idea to provide an inferior mechanism just for backward compatibility with Linux. Especially given how easy it is to do it properly, modeling the utility after eg lockf(1).