lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users
From
Date
On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 17:43 -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:38:29 +0100, Bodo Eggert said:
>
> > Maybe it's possible to extend the semantics of umount -l to change all
> > cwds under that mountpoint to be deleted directories which will no
> > longer cause the mountpoint to be busy (e.g. by redirecting them to a
> > special inode on initramfs). Most applications can cope with that (if
> > not, they're buggy),
>
> You mean that a program is *buggy* if it does:
>
> cwd("/home/user");
> /* do some stuff while we get our cwd ripped out from under us */
> file = open("./.mycconfrc");
>
> and expects the file to be opened in /home/user???

Yes, of course. Any program that doesn't check the return value of a
system call is buggy. Unless it really, really doesn't care - clearly
not the case here.

Lee

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.054 / U:0.660 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site