Subject: Re: /sbin/umount should support umount_* (PR#698)
To: Simon Gerraty <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@NetBSD.org>
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 <email@example.com>