On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 08:39:34PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > FWIW, I think that doing a swapoff in the shutdown path is just asking > for trouble. Fixing whatever bug this is would of course be nice, but > the need for swapoff here is a hack and only opens up up to problems. I agree. It looks like sort of race happens. Application (cvsupd) can be killed, but its inodes activity delayed by softupdates a bit more (just raw guess). I see no useful purpose to call swapoff(8) at shutdown stage, correct me, if I am not right. -- Andrey Chernov | http://ache.pp.ru/Received on Sat Oct 16 2004 - 00:48:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:17 UTC