From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 18 23:06:44 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A76A37B401; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 114EB43FD7; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:06:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h4J66bAQ047129; Mon, 19 May 2003 02:06:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost)h4J66bN1047126; Mon, 19 May 2003 02:06:37 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 02:06:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: David Schultz In-Reply-To: <20030519051855.GB4396@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Message-ID: <20030519015841.R28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20030518225640.S28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20030519051855.GB4396@HAL9000.homeunix.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Makoto Matsushita cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1-BETA umount problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 06:06:44 -0000 On Sun, 18 May 2003, David Schultz wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2003, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > > > truckman> IMHO, "umount -f /lib" should have failed in this case. > > > > I don't think so. -f means 'force', so it should be successed even if > > this cause something trouble to running system. If it would be > > unacceptable, there's easy way to solve it: don't use -f anymore, or > > add a new umount(8) option to do that. > > umount -f can be extremely useful on a multiuser system when you > *really* want to unmount a filesystem regardless of who might be > trying to use it. However, it also makes it easy to shoot > yourself in the foot. If it only fails in situations where you > are absolutely guaranteed to shoot yourself in the foot, that's > fine. There's no reason it should allow someone to unmount a > filesystem that contains a mountpoint for another mounted > filesystem. > > By the way, why is the original poster walking around and shooting > himself in the foot? Sigh. The dangers of firearms... I wanted to unmount as many filesystems as possible before connecting my Dazzle 6-in-1 USB reader (the one that used to work, but now causes panics). As you can imagine fsck'ing 650GB takes a little while... ;) Also, /lib on this system is nfs exported, and I couldn't be arsed to kill -9 nfsd and mountd. > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >