the umount() saga for regular linux desktop users

From: William (wh_at_designed4u.net)
Date: 12/31/04

  • Next message: Simon Burke: "/tmp as ramdisk" 
    To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:41:02 +0000

    Hi

    I am a linux desktop user. I love linux and all the wonderfull
    open-source/free software that comes with it... blah, blah, blah :). The
    following comments and suggestions about umount() stem from personal
    experience and are meant as friendly feedback for all you clever people. (I
    wish I understook how the kernel works)

    Regularly, when attempting to umount() a filesystem I receive 'device is busy'
    errors. The only way (that I have found) to solve these problems is to go on
    a journey into processland and kill all the guilty ones that have tied
    themselves to the filesystem concerned.

    In order to help solve this problem is it possible to modify the behaviour of
    the linux kernel.

    In my opinion, in order for linux to be trully user friendly, "a umount()
    should NEVER fail" (even if the device containing the filesystem is no
    longuer attached to the system). The kernel should do it's best to satisfy
    the umount request and cleanup. Maybe the kernel could try some of the
    following:

    1) if the device containing the filesystem (for local filesystems) is no
    longer physicaly attached to the system: revoke all process access to the
    filesystem and umount. Notify umount that the filesystem was not cleanly
    umounted.

    2) notify all processes attached to the filesystem that they must release
    control of it.

    3) the processes may respond to the notifications and request time to clean up
    in order to read/write any remaining data.

    4) processes that do not respond within a given time-frame should have their
    filesystem access revoked.

    5) once all the clean up has finnished... umount the filesystem.....

    I am not subscribed to the list so please email me on wh@designed4u.net

    Kind Regards
          William Heyland

    the new "a umount() should NEVER fail" campaign launched by me on december the
    31 of 2004. Just in time for new year ;-)

    PS: I am currently teaching myself about kernels in general and am hoping to
    start contributing to linux soon. But until then... if the kernel can't
    handle a umount() then nothing in userspace can do any better... rant, rant,
    rant, ... make umount() smarter.... Please?
    -
    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/

  • Next message: Simon Burke: "/tmp as ramdisk"

    Relevant Pages