Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 15:26:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r222466 - head/sbin/umount Message-ID: <813868799.1015531.1306783593226.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1105301921460.1535@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. > I wouldn't say it's necessary, but if you look at dounmount() in vfs_mount.c, it does a VFS_SYNC() before VFS_UNMOUNT(). I needed to fix nfs_sync() for forced dismounts to work because of this. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?813868799.1015531.1306783593226.JavaMail.root>