On Thursday 19 July 2007 09:17:48 [LoN]Kamikaze wrote: > Norberto Meijome wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:41:04 +0200 (CEST) > > > > Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> another work-around > >> is to use the auto mounter daemon (amd(8)). It umounts > >> file systems automatically that are not in use. > >> Another nice feature of amd(8) is that you don't have > >> to mount the file system either -- Simply plug the USB > >> stick in, then access it, and amd(8) will automatically > >> mount it for you. > > > > Now, something I dont understand - amd runs > > at user level, and it mounts filesystems, and nothing dies when the > > filesystems go away (other than the obvious cases for the applications > > trying to write to the FS in question). Doesn't amd , at some point , > > have to tell the kernel 'please mount this filesystem' here or there? > > Isn't the kernel STILL involved in all this? and why doesnt the kernel > > panic when the FS goes away? > > The trick is that amd unmounts the device after a couple of seconds, so > when someone accidentally removes a usb drive, it doesn't really matter. > Amd will simply fail to mount it on the next access. If you remove the > device during or shortly after accessing it, it still will panic the > system.
What is then the reason for the kernel not being able to unmount a filesystem whose provider is no longer present? What in the process of unmounting denies unmounting a filesystem whose provider is no longer available? Why can the kernel not just inform all programs that files have to be closed and are unaccessible any more, then consider the fs as unmounted and remove any bits of it left in the VM. Why can kernel not just ignore interruped/pending writes to that fs, drop the data, return an error to the program that initiated the write and just go on. -- PGP KeyID: 0x3118168B Keyserver: pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint BB50 2983 0714 36DC D02E 158A E03D 56DA 3118 168B
pgpK94L1KnIM6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
