Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2017 22:53:18 +0100 From: Nikolaus Rath <Nikolaus@rath.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: umount() taking minutes for FUSE filesystems Message-ID: <87ingr7d4h.fsf@vostro.rath.org> In-Reply-To: <201709081728.v88HSXP7010329@higson.cam.lispworks.com> (Martin Simmons's message of "Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:28:33 %2B0100") References: <87bmn44ruu.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <87o9qyrbs8.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <CAG6CVpWX1TPtR65dXkC4A_-hiSrh0L524mcPtcQM=K28RM7vWw@mail.gmail.com> <2FAD66DE-031B-4B36-9E85-C7BC6B52B5E6@gmail.com> <29de6425-9f92-3bd8-f446-1c9dded33b15@freebsd.org> <87k21dzdrp.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> <201709051811.v85IBmbO005440@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <87ingugw2v.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org> <201709081143.v88BhEOn001626@higson.cam.lispworks.com> <87lglp6zj8.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <201709081728.v88HSXP7010329@higson.cam.lispworks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sep 08 2017, Martin Simmons <martin@lispworks.com> wrote:
>> That said, the filesystem could also detect the unmount by the kernel
>> closing the fd. So I'm not sure what is gained by the extra request
>> either... Theoretically, at least under Linux the destroy handler could
>> perform some notify_* operations, but I don't see how that would be
>> useful when the filesystem will be unmounted anyway.
>
> I don't think the kernel itself ever closes the fd (except implicitly in =
the
> case where the filesystem program dies unexpected).
Sorry, I should have been more precise. The umount is not detected by
the kernel closing the fd, but by the kernel returning ENODEV when
accessing the fd.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--=20
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
=C2=BBTime flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.=C2=
=AB
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87ingr7d4h.fsf>