Messages in this thread | | | From | "Jim B" <> | Subject | Re: Samba FS | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 1999 19:01:12 -0400 |
| |
This topic just went through the debian-user list. Seems that the general consensus is that using a regular "umount" on it first will allow you to unmount those smb shares. IIRC, after doing the umount they ran smbumount and it worked.
----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Dodd <dirk@loth.demon.co.uk> To: Forever shall I be. <zinx@linuxfreak.com> Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 1999 6:04 PM Subject: Re: Samba FS
> On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 02:33:21PM -0500, Forever shall I be. wrote: > > > I just had a nasty run-in with the darker side of smbfs... It seems that > > if I'm disconnected prematurely I can not unmount the mounted samba > > filesystem, and all processes that try to access it go 'D', and can't be > > killed via kill -9... I'd REALLY like to have those processes gone and > > the filesystem unmounted _without_ rebooting if possible... Any tips > > would be appreciated.. > > Ugh. Can you look at WCHAN in the ps output and see where they're stuck (xref > the number with your System.map) -- or is this just going to give the address > of __down, I wonder? Which kernel version, BTW? > > -- > Never count your chickens before they rip your lips off > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |