From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org  Fri Sep  8 17:28:39 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2590E23E26
 for <freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>; Fri,  8 Sep 2017 17:28:39 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from martin@lispworks.com)
Received: from lwfs1-cam.cam.lispworks.com (mail.lispworks.com [46.17.166.21])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ACED633C9
 for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  8 Sep 2017 17:28:38 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from martin@lispworks.com)
Received: from higson.cam.lispworks.com (higson.cam.lispworks.com
 [192.168.1.7])
 by lwfs1-cam.cam.lispworks.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v88HSXhX093393;
 Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:28:33 +0100 (BST)
 (envelope-from martin@lispworks.com)
Received: from higson.cam.lispworks.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
 higson.cam.lispworks.com (8.14.4) id v88HSXRY010333;
 Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:28:33 +0100
Received: (from martin@localhost)
 by higson.cam.lispworks.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id v88HSXP7010329;
 Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:28:33 +0100
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 18:28:33 +0100
Message-Id: <201709081728.v88HSXP7010329@higson.cam.lispworks.com>
From: Martin Simmons <martin@lispworks.com>
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
In-reply-to: <87lglp6zj8.fsf@vostro.rath.org> (message from Nikolaus Rath on
 Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:22:19 +0100)
Subject: Re: umount() taking minutes for FUSE filesystems
References: <87bmn44ruu.fsf@vostro.rath.org> <87o9qyrbs8.fsf@vostro.rath.org>
 <CAG6CVpWX1TPtR65dXkC4A_-hiSrh0L524mcPtcQM=K28RM7vWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <2FAD66DE-031B-4B36-9E85-C7BC6B52B5E6@gmail.com>
 <29de6425-9f92-3bd8-f446-1c9dded33b15@freebsd.org>
 <87k21dzdrp.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org>
 <201709051811.v85IBmbO005440@higson.cam.lispworks.com>
 <87ingugw2v.fsf@thinkpad.rath.org>
 <201709081143.v88BhEOn001626@higson.cam.lispworks.com>
 <87lglp6zj8.fsf@vostro.rath.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 17:28:40 -0000

>>>>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:22:19 +0100, Nikolaus Rath said:
> 
> On Sep 08 2017, Martin Simmons <martin@lispworks.com> wrote:
>
> > That will prevent the kernel from sending FUSE_DESTROY, but what is the
> > purpose of FUSE_DESTROY if the user program can't respond to it?
> 
> In most cases, umount() is not called by the filesystem but by the
> user. In that case, the FUSE_DESTROY request gives the filesystem a
> chance to clean-up and exit the main loop.

OK, that makes sense.


> That said, the filesystem could also detect the unmount by the kernel
> closing the fd. So I'm not sure what is gained by the extra request
> either... Theoretically, at least under Linux the destroy handler could
> perform some notify_* operations, but I don't see how that would be
> useful when the filesystem will be unmounted anyway.

I don't think the kernel itself ever closes the fd (except implicitly in the
case where the filesystem program dies unexpected).

__Martin