On Thu, Nov 09 2017, Joshua Watt wrote: > On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 23:52 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 09:34 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 08 2017, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > I'd be nervous about making "umount -f" do it. I think >> > > administrators >> > > could be unpleasantly surprised in some cases if an "umount -f" >> > > affects >> > > other mounts of the same server. >> > >> > I was all set to tell you that it already does, but then tested and >> > found it doesn't and .... > > I tried mounting two different remote paths from an NFS4 server, and > when I did 'remount,retrans=0', it changed the parameter for both of > them meaning they are indeed shaing the struct nfs_server (which based > on my reading of the code is what I would have expected). What > procedure did you use to test this? I was using nosharecache, because I was thinking "of course it will affect all mounts that use sharecache, that is really the same as a bind-mount". But I should have been explicit. With nosharecache, "umount -f" or remount only affects the one mount. With sharecache (the default) or bind mounts, "umount -f" and remount affects the underlying superblock which might be mounted at multiple places. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
