Re: [PATCH] Fixing soft NFS umount -f, round 1

[David Holland <dholland-tech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 10:07:28AM -0700, Chuck Silvers wrote:
 > > > ...however, with a dead nfs server even sync() should time out and
 > > > fail eventually.
 > > 
 > > The problem is that you can ask VFS_SYNC(9) to wait or not, but there is
 > > no such option for sync(2). 
 > 
 > for a soft mount sync() should time out like everything else, yes.
 > for a hard mount, our current semantics for sync() will cause it to
 > wait indefinitely.  sync() is not required to wait for anything at all,
 > so it would be possible to have it not hang even for hard mounts
 > and even though there's no way to specify wait or no-wait,
 > but it would probably be a lot of work to get there.

Well, sure, but we were talking about soft mounts. While I suppose it
would be nice to be able to umount -f a hard mount too, it doesn't
seem like a requirement or even necessarily consistent with the intent
of hard mount semantics.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost