Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:02:52 +1000 From: Norberto Meijome <freebsd@meijome.net> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de, idiotbg@gmail.com, josh@tcbug.org Cc: josh@tcbug.org, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, olli@lurza.secnetix.de, idiotbg@gmail.com, LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de Subject: Re: removing external usb hdd without unmounting causes reboot? Message-ID: <20070719130252.6880b967@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200707181541.l6IFf4ht051775@lurza.secnetix.de> References: <200707181703.07480.idiotbg@gmail.com> <200707181541.l6IFf4ht051775@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:41:04 +0200 (CEST)
Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> wrote:
> If you have problems remembering,
This is very interesting thread indeed....
I have found that mounting remote SMB shares will panic the kernel too, but
only if i try to access it while 'gone' . If I remember correctly, if i thread
carefully around it, i can manage to shutdown everything and it will only panic
at the very last minute when the kernel tries to unmount.
And, from my point of view, the explanation 'well, don't remove your mounted
devices without unmounting them first' is rubbish - the problem is not
necessarily users removing them, but ALL the reasons that could cause an
unwanted and unplanned removal. Like a network outage in the case of smbfs. or
someone killing the power on a USB device. I can't see why the whole kernel
should die on you. Yes, i understand there are architectural reasons for this -
then the architecture is not right anymore, i think.
> another work-around
> is to use the auto mounter daemon (amd(8)). It umounts
> file systems automatically that are not in use.
> Another nice feature of amd(8) is that you don't have
> to mount the file system either -- Simply plug the USB
> stick in, then access it, and amd(8) will automatically
> mount it for you.
Now, something I dont understand - amd runs
at user level, and it mounts filesystems, and nothing dies when the filesystems
go away (other than the obvious cases for the applications trying to write to
the FS in question). Doesn't amd , at some point , have to tell the kernel
'please mount this filesystem' here or there? Isn't the kernel STILL involved
in all this? and why doesnt the kernel panic when the FS goes away?
The same goes for hald - it doesn't work flawlessly, but it does the trick, and
i cant recall an instance when it crashed the kernel.
re. USB disks, could we not by default use amd to mount USB devices? It seems
the obvious native replacement for hald + polkitd + dbus I use in XFCE with
Thunar on my laptop...
TIA!
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070719130252.6880b967>