> On May 11, 2018, at 20:00, David Disseldorp <ddiss@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 May 2018 17:12:02 +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote: > >> this avoid force umount getting stuck at ceph_osdc_sync() >> >> Signed-off-by: "Yan, Zheng" <zyan@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> fs/ceph/super.c | 1 + >> include/linux/ceph/osd_client.h | 5 ++++- >> net/ceph/osd_client.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ceph/super.c b/fs/ceph/super.c >> index 3c1155803444..40664e13cc0f 100644 >> --- a/fs/ceph/super.c >> +++ b/fs/ceph/super.c >> @@ -793,6 +793,7 @@ static void ceph_umount_begin(struct super_block *sb) >> if (!fsc) >> return; >> fsc->mount_state = CEPH_MOUNT_SHUTDOWN; >> + ceph_osdc_abort_requests(&fsc->client->osdc, -EIO); > > Does the unmount need to guarantee that the failed requests won't be > processed by any OSDs, or is local cancellation fine here? > umount -f does not need to guarantee that Regards Yan, Zheng > Cheers, David -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
