On 2007-Jul-19 00:57:57 +0200, Momchil Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think you are missing the point here and it is that the drive is already >gone, so you do not have to care about it.
I don't think anyone is missing this point. >The most natural way for me seems to be that the OS should just return errors >to the programs trying any I/O on that drive. May be when a drive is >unplugged the OS has to mark it and the mounted file systems as not being >there until all opened files on it are closed, return errors for all I/O >except for closing opened files. And when all files are closed consider the >fs as unmounted and remove the drive from the kernel. And everyone I am aware of agrees that this is what _should_ happen. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, the filesystem and VM code have a very incestuous relationship and actually _making_ FreeBSD behave this way is (from all accounts) very difficult. There is already an entry on the project ideas list to at least make this work for MSDOSFS (http://www.freebsd.org/projects/ideas/#p-msdosfs - also part of SOC2007). >This is my idea of how things should be done. Ensuring that a file system is >in a consistent state after drive disconnect is something completely >different Note that UFS+softupdates already implements this. -- Peter Jeremy
pgp3niumMyzcX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
