Re: To Unmount Or Not To Unmount

On 2003-09-26 at 13:42:25 [+0200], Axel D=F6rfler wrote:
> Tyler Dauwalder <tyler-cyCl/[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The problem with a) is, that it's a bit beyond the control of
> > > the user. If, as Axel says, unmounting would always work not
> > > heeding
> > > pending vnodes, then the user might risk losing data, I suppose.
> > I agree, that's a bit mean to pull the rug out from under the user
> > like
> > that. b) seems like a weak solution, too, though. c) and d) seem
> > nicer to
> > me. Is there any reason you can think of why either couldn't be made
> > to work?
>=20
> Just a short word for me as I don't have time right now:
> I thought about having a "force" parameter for unmount() - it will fail
> with B_BUSY or something when there are open files if force =3D=3D fals=
e,
> but will unmount the disk anyway, if not.
> We could even handle the case differently for read and write access,
> since the open mode is stored in the descriptors, too.
> Furthermore, the system should never unmount a partition without user
> interaction - only in case of a shutdow :)

Sounds reasonable.

CU, Ingo