2010/10/1 Lennart Poettering <[email protected]>: > On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote: > >> >> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio <[email protected]>: >> > About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2? >> >> I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition mounted >> using ntfs-3g. >> If I kill the ntfs-3g process, the mount will go away. >> During your "kill" stage, the order of processes being killed is >> random, I guess. >> So there still might be processes accessing that ntfs partition. >> >> It would definitely be nicer, if you kill all running processes >> (besides the ntfs-3g process), and then unmount the NTFS partition. >> The nfs case is similar. >> killall5 (at least in Debian) has an -o flag [1], and e.g. portmap or >> ntfs-3g use that mechanism to not be killed by the killall script. >> >> As I already wrote for the LVM/mdadm/cryptsetup case, imo we need a >> mechanism how those tools can hook into the shutdown process. >> Maybe having a single binary doing all steps in on go does not offer >> the necessary flexibility. > > As mentioned, Fabianos code is intended as last resort. The proper order > in which to shut down stuff should be ensured with with the usual > brefore/after dependencies.
If an LVM/NFS/RAID mount is defined in /etc/fstab, and those mount units are created implicitly, how can one add before/after dependencies there? I still fail to see the big picture here and how this is supposed to work. Could you explain in greater detail how you intend to handle the aforementioned cases. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
