Date: Mon, 20 Sep 1999 12:30:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@caspian.plutotech.com>, Matt Dillon <dillon@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_bio.c Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9909201229050.44336-100000@semuta.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909210449080.47853-100000@alphplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > If a device "goes away", how should any pending buffers be marked? Does a > > umount -f cause pending buffers to be B_INVAl'ed? I'm pretty sure that > > we still can't rid the system of the knowledge of a mounted fs for a device > > that has disappeared, but I haven't checked recently. > > I think they should set B_ERROR in bp->b_flags and set bp->b_error > to something other than EIO (ENXIO perhaps), and brelse() should > only retry writes when bp->b_error == EIO. FWIW, I agree with this. Just as long as any buffers for this device are destroyed. Devices can come and go, but generation numbers for devices don't get propagated back to the buffer cache. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9909201229050.44336-100000>