From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 18 23:13:19 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 A00EA37B401 for ; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-233-57-131.client.attbi.com [12.233.57.131]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EFC43F93 for ; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.9/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h4J6DIhG004768; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.9/8.12.5/Submit) id h4J6DIkn004767; Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 23:13:17 -0700 From: David Schultz To: Andre Guibert de Bruet Message-ID: <20030519061317.GA4755@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Andre Guibert de Bruet , Makoto Matsushita , current@FreeBSD.org References: <20030518225640.S28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <200305190317.h4J3H0M7066994@gw.catspoiler.org> <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20030519051855.GB4396@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030519015841.R28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030519015841.R28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> 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 06:13:19 -0000 On Mon, May 19, 2003, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: > > 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. If you want to be able to unmount /foo/bar before unmounting /foo, mount /foo/bar as /foo_bar instead, and create a symlink.