From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 19 00:06:11 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 82CC137B401; Mon, 19 May 2003 00:06:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (alpha.siliconlandmark.com [209.69.98.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B01743F85; Mon, 19 May 2003 00:06:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from alpha.siliconlandmark.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h4J769AQ047596; Mon, 19 May 2003 03:06:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost)h4J769cN047593; Mon, 19 May 2003 03:06:09 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from andy@siliconlandmark.com) X-Authentication-Warning: alpha.siliconlandmark.com: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 03:06:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet To: David Schultz In-Reply-To: <20030519061317.GA4755@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Message-ID: <20030519030252.M47214@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20030518225640.S28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <20030519131646J.matusita@jp.FreeBSD.org> <20030519015841.R28986@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <20030519061317.GA4755@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 07:06:11 -0000 On Sun, 18 May 2003, David Schultz wrote: > 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. I'm probably going to end up setting it up this way... Now, I know that mount -f means force, but shouldn't there be a way of unmounting, or at least recovering the block device/partition/slice? > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >