Re: 5.1-BETA umount problems

On Sun, 18 May 2003, David Schultz wrote:

> On Mon, May 19, 2003, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> If you want to be able to unmount /foo/bar before unmounting /foo,
> mount /foo/bar as /foo_bar instead, and create a symlink.

I'm probably going to end up setting it up this way...

Now, I know that mount -f means force, but shouldn't there be a way of
unmounting, or at least recovering the block device/partition/slice?

> Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant >
> Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/    >