Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 22:31:32 +0800 From: araujobsdport@gmail.com To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: fixing "umount -f" for the NFS client Message-ID: <8374DB4D-C659-4400-AFC9-8E56B692C71E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <748522744.41194273.1381842355314.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <748522744.41194273.1381842355314.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013/10/15, at 21:05, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8374DB4D-C659-4400-AFC9-8E56B692C71E>