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