On Sun, 18 May 2003, David Schultz wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2003, Makoto Matsushita wrote: > > > > truckman> IMHO, "umount -f /lib" should have failed in this case. > > > > I don't think so. -f means 'force', so it should be successed even if > > this cause something trouble to running system. If it would be > > unacceptable, there's easy way to solve it: don't use -f anymore, or > > add a new umount(8) option to do that. > > umount -f can be extremely useful on a multiuser system when you > *really* want to unmount a filesystem regardless of who might be > trying to use it. However, it also makes it easy to shoot > yourself in the foot. If it only fails in situations where you > are absolutely guaranteed to shoot yourself in the foot, that's > fine. There's no reason it should allow someone to unmount a > filesystem that contains a mountpoint for another mounted > filesystem. > > By the way, why is the original poster walking around and shooting > himself in the foot? Sigh. The dangers of firearms... I wanted to unmount as many filesystems as possible before connecting my Dazzle 6-in-1 USB reader (the one that used to work, but now causes panics). As you can imagine fsck'ing 650GB takes a little while... ;) Also, /lib on this system is nfs exported, and I couldn't be arsed to kill -9 nfsd and mountd. > Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >Received on Sun May 18 2003 - 21:06:44 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:08 UTC