also sprach Vincent Fourmond <fourm...@debian.org> [2009.09.08.2300 +0200]: > > + pumount > > /dev/disk/by-id/usb-WD_10EACS_External_57442D574341553438393238333532-0:0 > > umount: /dev/mapper/_dev_sdc: not mounted > > Error: umount failed > > I'm unsure how this situation can arise: in principle, you mount a > device using pmount and unmount it using pumount. As a consequence, it > shouldn't get unmounted before the call to pumount, shouldn't it ? Or > did I miss something ?
I think in this case I used umount to be able to run fsck. You are right that in principle the problem should not arise. However, I don't see the benefit of running luks_release only after a successful umount. If you run it unconditionally, then pumount can tear down the setup no matter how broken it is. That's necessary to free the dm handle and useful before you run pmount on the same device. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madd...@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "the problem with america is stupidity. i'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" -- seen on irc
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
