From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 15 13:06:02 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 29D7B61D; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:06:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D073B2123; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:06:01 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArgEAFo8XVKDaFve/2dsb2JhbABahBGDKb1kgRSBOHSCJQEBBAEjVhsYAgINGQJZGYgABqsKkkGBKY1tNAcWglSBOwORXpgog0AggW0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,498,1378872000"; d="scan'208";a="59437952" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2013 09:05:55 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8A5B4064; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:05:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:05:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <748522744.41194273.1381842355314.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: 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: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: freebsd-fs 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: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:06:02 -0000 araujo wrote: > > > > > > > 2013/9/5 Benjamin Kaduk < kaduk@mit.edu > > > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > > > I think there are spare vfsops fields, so the MFC can be done in an > ABI-compatible way. The new routine is for optional functionality, > so it > seems fine. > > There are spares vfs ops in 10/current, but not in stable/9. An MFC > will > result in a VFS ABI change. (Since 10.0 hasn't been released yet, I > didn't > use one of the recently added spares.) > > Oh, right, I was looking at 10/current. > > Unless there are pressing calls for the feature in the stable > branches, it's probably best to hold off on the MFC, then. OpenAFS > has encountered a few KBI incompatibilities over the years (mostly > in the networking bits, if I remember correctly), and we can deal in > the future, but not having to is nice. > > > > > Hello Guys, > > > Is it possible to have it on 9-STABLE? > I tried to port the changes of revision 255136 made by rmacklem@ to a > 9.1-RELEASE but the bug is still there. > > > Any change to make it works on 9.1, 9.2 or 9-STABLE? > > The patch attached is based on 9.1-RELEASE. > The patch looks ok at a glance. Note that it can take up to 2-3minutes for a forced dismount to complete, depending on where the threads are waiting. If the mount is still there 5minutes after doing "umount -f", do a "ps axhl" and post the output of that to me. It may be getting stuck somewhere else than where I've seen during testing. rick > > Best Regards, -- > Marcelo Araujo > araujo@FreeBSD.org