On Saturday 12 January 2013 00:13:12 Phillip Susi wrote: > On 01/11/2013 11:52 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> but my point was that what you are looking for is umount -f, not > >> umount -l. > > > > and my point is that `umount -f` doesn't always work which means > > `umount -l` is sometimes the only way to remove a mount point. an > > unresponsive remote or something is holding open a reference (which > > doesn't show up in `lsof -n`). > > Right. Forced unmounts aren't really implemented. They need to be. > It isn't losetup that needs to be forcibly detached, but the filesystem. would be nice if userland had visibility into all these handles that the kernel has opened. for example, with losetup, i think the only way is to query the loop devices directly or sysfs ? might be handy to at least teach lsof to peek in there, but still sucks we have to do it subsystem by subsystem. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
