From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 15 14:31:39 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 155D4ABD; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:31:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from araujobsdport@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pd0-x22f.google.com (mail-pd0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD04B295A; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q10so8845697pdj.6 for ; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=2tmgoXkfGHd0NTYFjEhti4rNlisHU8+UN99eHcHGiog=; b=m3L8FPjMFsfPWYQRZVFDfCoSyzwl6LO86tqDqrfMKy9L/E6oY4DjZeK0hQSZxQ4t8y QpFjeGOefaLkCG2co/2O0seCkOvX72pYshLtrReQhwOVlOElIcivApf6MBXwFu6fLJRW bF2mfo9Hie0Plw6azsG1LpRVgtgfp1P8ulNXY2ETGVYfKJTwNAFBoJxUzq/Z2H6SuaOv 0oI3JQ7X0tAT+gtaMoBtbmYnGsZVakaQFn9EczxWl2B5L0hXxPpRtI3xUu6Kol5uTOW4 yzKWreyzwtU0tZz/phTW31FqUz82zXz2Nv13bLaJp7EUmUseUgWVTB7bZTFJDmATRCKS 9sjA== X-Received: by 10.68.170.225 with SMTP id ap1mr8915855pbc.133.1381847498510; Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.5] (host-219-68-127-128.dynamic.kbtelecom.net. [219.68.127.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id wp8sm84968726pbc.26.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:31:36 -0700 (PDT) References: <748522744.41194273.1381842355314.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <748522744.41194273.1381842355314.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8374DB4D-C659-4400-AFC9-8E56B692C71E@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10B146) From: araujobsdport@gmail.com Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:31:32 +0800 To: Rick Macklem 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 14:31:39 -0000 On 2013/10/15, at 21:05, Rick Macklem wrote: > araujo wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> 2013/9/5 Benjamin Kaduk < kaduk@mit.edu > >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Wed, 4 Sep 2013, Rick Macklem wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Benjamin Kaduk wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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.) >>=20 >> Oh, right, I was looking at 10/current. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Hello Guys, >>=20 >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >>=20 >> Any change to make it works on 9.1, 9.2 or 9-STABLE? >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. Hello Rick, Thanks by the prompt reply, I'm gonna make more tests tomorrow, and give you= the output if necessary!=20 However, is there any way to improve this time to force the umount? >=20 > rick >=20 >>=20 >> Best Regards, -- >> Marcelo Araujo >> araujo@FreeBSD.org