lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: forced umount?
Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> We never want to _abort_ pending updates only pending reads. So, even with
> revoke(), we need to be careful which is why we do do_fsync() in
> generic_revoke_file() to make sure pending updates are flushed before we
> declare the inode revoked.
>
> But, I haven't looked at forced unmount that much so there may be other
> issues I am not aware of.

For the purposes of this thread we _do_ want to abort pending updates to
force the system to give up on a broken block device rather than block a
bunch of tasks in the D state forever.

-
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: 2007-03-28 16:59    [W:0.051 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site