> So may I suggest that even if the immediate issue ends up being sorted > out, just from a robustness standpoint the "consider EBUSY a hard > error" seems to be a mistake. Especially from umount. The point I was trying to make in the other thread is that this needs fixing in the subsystem that's causing _unnecessary_ spurious EBUSY errors and Jens has been at his right away. What we don't want is for successful umount to be equated with that an immediate mount can never return EBUSY again. I think that's not a guarantee that umount should give and with mount namespaces in the mix you can get your filesystem pinned implicitly somewhere behind your back without you ever noticing it as just one very obvious example. > > Transient failures are pretty much expected Yes, I agree.
