From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 30 18:22:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05896106564A; Mon, 30 May 2011 18:22:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D4A8FC13; Mon, 30 May 2011 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [65.122.17.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EB4646B06; Mon, 30 May 2011 14:22:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 19:22:55 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Kostik Belousov In-Reply-To: <20110530130751.GV48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> Message-ID: References: <201105292113.p4TLDrA3046886@svn.freebsd.org> <20110530130751.GV48734@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Rick Macklem , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r222466 - head/sbin/umount X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 18:22:56 -0000 On Mon, 30 May 2011, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 01:48:53PM +0100, Robert Watson wrote: >> On Sun, 29 May 2011, Rick Macklem wrote: >> >>> Modify the umount(8) command so that it doesn't do a sync(2) syscall >>> before unmount(2) for the "-f" case. This avoids a forced dismount from >>> getting stuck for an NFS mountpoint in sync() when the server is not >>> responsive. With this commit, forced dismounts should normally work for >>> the NFS clients, but can take up to about 1minute to complete. >> >> I'm actually a bit confused about why umount(8) calls sync(2) at all: >> surely it's the responsibility of the file system, rather than the userland >> tool, to ensure consistency subject to file system configuration and >> unmount-time flags? > This call is from the same department as triple-sync before reboot, IMO. No doubt. :-) If the sync(2) has actual consistency and reliability benefits, it should probably be done by the umount(2) system call, so that other future auto-mounters, etc, also get the same result, rather than having to encode it in every application. If it's done on blind faith, perhaps it shouldn't be done at all. Robert