Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 06:32:03 +0200 From: Edward Tomasz =?utf-8?Q?Napiera=C5=82a?= <trasz@FreeBSD.org> To: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> Cc: Hongjiang Zhang <honzhan@microsoft.com>, "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ufs freeze does not work Message-ID: <20160629043203.GA82400@brick> In-Reply-To: <20160628195731.GA21323@dft-labs.eu> References: <CO2PR03MB2215FAA1AB86A669039B9540B5210@CO2PR03MB2215.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20160628065432.GA20716@brick> <SN2PR03MB2224903F61C7DD576EDDB05DB5220@SN2PR03MB2224.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20160628185523.GA82035@brick> <20160628195731.GA21323@dft-labs.eu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 0628T2157, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:55:23PM +0200, Edward Tomasz Napierała wrote: > > As I said, the suspension is released when the ufssuspend file descriptor > > gets closed - which is what happens when the calling process exits. It's > > a protection mechanism, to avoid the situation where the process malfunction > > (eg a crash) would leave the system in unrecoverable (suspended) state. > > > > You probably want your process to just execute another one, and wait until > > it exits. > > > > The example with freeze -f strongly hints this is supposed to work as a > drop in replacement for linux scripts. > > As such, maybe ufs should grow another operation which does not > automagically unfreeze. I'm not sure it's a good idea to provide an inferior mechanism just for backward compatibility with Linux. Especially given how easy it is to do it properly, modeling the utility after eg lockf(1).home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160629043203.GA82400>