Subject: Re: Improving the Unix API
To: Francois-Rene Rideau <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 06/28/1999 11:38:49
On Mon, 28 Jun 1999, Francois-Rene Rideau wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 1999 at 12:58:05PM -0400, der Mouse wrote:
> > See NetBSD (and presumably other BSD) "mount -o update,rdonly" and/or
> > "umount -f". (Last I tried, the latter didn't work as it should, but
> > that's a matter of fixing bugs rather than introducing new features.)
> If you re-read the original message, the problem is what to do
> about processes with open file descriptors on the partition:
> stop them at once? stop them at first file access?
> block them instead? kill them? Will you do it atomically?
> How will you allow for such large table-walking to be compatible
> with real-time kernel response? [Hint: either use incremental
> data-structures, or don't be atomic and be interruptible instead.]
unmount -f is more intended for oh-sh*t situations. So harshness is ok.
The way it's done is that all of the vnodes in that fs's vnode list get
either vgone'd or vcleaned (in the -f case). This will have the effect of
mapping them to deadfs vnodes, so all future access will either fail or do
nothing (close works, read returns an error). There aren't any big table