On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:04:33AM +1000, Grahame Kelly wrote: > > On 16/05/2009, at 5:53 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >> On Sat, May 16, 2009, Grahame Kelly wrote: >> >>> Rather than stating what I suspect is just a "belief", have you look >>> at the Kernel source code at all? If so I would be very interested at
[snip]
> I am not disputing that some drives or controllers may not be standards
> conforming (at times this is more than likely). If and only if a drive,
> or/and its controller conform to such standards, then whatever data
> stream needs to be written by the subsystem on the completeion of a
> "sync" or in response to a "umount" is suppose to ensure that such data
> is stored on the media either before the status response is returned to
> the driving s/w or is warranted to have done so. If this didn't happen
> then all hell would break loose (which is what your saying).
>
> I don't believe much if anything at all.
>
> We both have discovered via our experiences when "things" don't work
> a.k.a. don't conform to a standard - this is when structures or such
> methodologies break.
> Under POSIX "umount" is suppose to warrant such for the device, its
> controlling structures and associated kernel drive tables. If the
> system(s) don't - then they simply are non-conforming implementations -
> That is ALL.
>
I think you missed the point about partitions sitting on LVM sitting on
raid. if you umount a lvm partition the block device provided by lvm is
unmounted - but the lvm group and potentially the raid device underneath
isn't.
Your about statement is only really true when we used drive directory
and not via DM or LVM
[snip]
> Cheers.
> Grahame
>
>>
>> Adrian
>>
>
>
--
"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to
interpret law."
- George W. Bush
11/22/2000
Austin, TX
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
