On Wednesday 26 February 2003 13:45, Simon Gerraty wrote:
> >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.
>
> Yep, that's exactly how it works - umount_snfs just kill's the
> mount_snfs process that does all the real work.
>
> On netbsd though, umount has no way of detecting that its an snfs
> mount rather than a vanila NFS mount, since not enough info is stored
> in the kernel.  And since umount "knows" NFS it just tries to send an
> RPC to the server - which fails.

I'm either being unclear or dense.  What I was getting at was the idea of 
having mount simply look for the mount process for any particular mount and 
send that process the signal.  This may mean storing the PID o fthe mount 
process in the kernel structure but that's all.

Now, this is based on the (perhaps erroneous) assumption that each mount 
command causes a unique process to run and manage the mount point.  Is this 
an incorrect assumption?

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@netbsd.org>
http://www.NetBSD.org/