On Mo, 29.07.19 14:08, Ulrich Windl (ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de) wrote:
> >> And just repeating the unmount without further actions is not a > >> hack? > > > > Hmm? we tend to give up when we can't unmount something, log about it > > and go on. We also have a second shutdown phase, which is a dumb and > > brutal kill/umount loop that kills remaining processes and removes > > mounts in a tight loop until nothing changes anymore. This second > > phase is a safety net only though: it takes care of stuff that somehow > > survive the first phase, i.e. the clean phase. > > > >> Why not stop when unmount fails? > > > > We do that. > > But it seems to be a better idea for the second phase to kill processes > blocking unmount. Hmm? The second phase kills *all* processes still remaining, in a tight loop, under the assumption this will unblock mounts. When it notices that doing so doesn#t help it eventually gives up too... But again, the second phase is just a safety net, it should only get involved if there are issues with the first phase. If the first phase works correctly the second phase does exactly nothing anymore. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Berlin _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
