Subject: Re: /sbin/umount should support umount_* (PR#698)
To: Simon Gerraty <>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <>
List: current-users
Date: 02/26/2003 08:06:11
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 04:35, Simon Gerraty wrote:
> As I mentioned previously I think "suspended" is the most appropriate
> state for this PR.   I may never get around to it, but someone
> else might - and that would be a Good Thing[TM]

Yep.  That's why I am trying to get wider discussion.

> The issue still exists, eg. I can create a wonderous new filesystem
> (actually I did - sNFS ;-) that has all sorts of magic properties but
> can present itself to the local system as an NFS mount.  Due to
> the /sbin/mound_<type> support it is trivial to get these
> things mounted.  Getting them unmounted isn't so easy.

Wouldn't there be a mount_snfs process running?  Why not just have umount send 
that process a signal that it can use to do its own cleaning up?  It 
certainly has all the information that it needs.

D'Arcy J.M. Cain <>