From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 29 13:41:30 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC08284; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:41:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C362854; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:41:29 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAP9OH1KDaFve/2dsb2JhbABahA2DJ7t0gQ2BQXSCJAEBBSNWGw4KAgINGQJZBogUpnqSK4Epjhc0B4JogTQDqVmDPCCBbg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,983,1367985600"; d="scan'208";a="48057180" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2013 09:41:29 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF7AB4038; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:41:28 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:41:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Mark Felder Message-ID: <1184714754.15192677.1377783688897.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1377780770.11951.15550057.2F8C551C@webmail.messagingengine.com> Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:41:30 -0000 Mark Felder wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013, at 7:50, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > Finally, neither of these options are safe to use for NFSv4, > > because > > operations that manipulate state (like locks) cannot be safely > > interrupted, > > since they will leave the lock in an undefined state, at least for > > the > > FreeBSD server. > > So, at least for NFSv4, a forced dismount is a necessary > > alternative. > > > > I was not aware of this specific issue, so thank you for the warning > Yeah. It's documented in the BUGS section of "man mount_nfs" and few (me included;-) can be bothered reading an entire man page. rick