Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 19:33:32 -0400 (EDT) From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> To: Francois-Rene Rideau <fare@tunes.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, NetBSD Kernel <tech-kern@netbsd.org>, OpenBSD Kernel <tech@openbsd.org>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Subject: Re: Improving the Unix API Message-ID: <199906272333.TAA23042@Twig.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> (clri didn't work?)
> Never heard about clri (was under Linux).
May not have existed, then, which *would* explain it. :-)
>>> Another problem was the ability to change the mount status of a
>>> partition from read-write to read-only or to unmounted,
>> See NetBSD (and presumably other BSD) "mount -o update,rdonly"
>> and/or "umount -f".
> If you re-read the original message, the problem is what to do about
> processes with open file descriptors on the partition: stop them at
> once? stop them at first file access? block them instead? kill them?
Yes, that's the most difficult part.
The NetBSD manpage doesn't say what happens if you "mount -o
update,force,rdonly" when there are writeable descriptors open onto the
filesystem, and then try to use those fds. I would assume further
attempts to write would produce errors (EROFS?), unless of course the
filesystem has been re-remounted read/write.
The manpage for umount says
-f The filesystem is forcibly unmounted. Active special devices
continue to work, but all other files return errors if further
accesses are attempted.
I haven't looked at the relevant kernel code to see what *really*
happens.
> How will you allow for such large table-walking to be compatible with
> real-time kernel response?
*What* large table-walking? All this means you have to do is have
every write check the relevant mount point to see if it's mounted
read-only, for downgrading remounts, and mark the filesystem as gone,
for forced unmounts. (I suspect this is what deadfs is for.)
>>> I intend to put free unices in competition [...]
>> Reasonable as this sounds, I think the last thing we need is yet
>> another ground on which one free-unix can be doing the "nana nana
>> boo boo" taunt at another.
> Competition is _not_ about taunting each other for pride;
I know this. I even think most of the people involved know it.
But there seem to be a few - not many, but very poisonous - who seem to
take any competition - indeed, almost any *difference* - as an
opportunity for "we're better than you" egoboo.
der Mouse
mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199906272333.TAA23042>