On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lennart Poettering <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 01.10.10 18:16, Michael Biebl ([email protected]) wrote: > >> >> 2010/10/1 Fabiano Fidêncio <[email protected]>: >> > About fuse, Which is the problem in try to umount using umount2? >> >> I'm not an expert regarding fuse, but say I have a partition mounted >> using ntfs-3g. >> If I kill the ntfs-3g process, the mount will go away. >> During your "kill" stage, the order of processes being killed is >> random, I guess. >> So there still might be processes accessing that ntfs partition. >> >> It would definitely be nicer, if you kill all running processes >> (besides the ntfs-3g process), and then unmount the NTFS partition. >> The nfs case is similar. >> killall5 (at least in Debian) has an -o flag [1], and e.g. portmap or >> ntfs-3g use that mechanism to not be killed by the killall script. >> >> As I already wrote for the LVM/mdadm/cryptsetup case, imo we need a >> mechanism how those tools can hook into the shutdown process. >> Maybe having a single binary doing all steps in on go does not offer >> the necessary flexibility. > > As mentioned, Fabianos code is intended as last resort. The proper order > in which to shut down stuff should be ensured with with the usual > brefore/after dependencies.
yes! Just one thing: do we still need a killall.service? Or systemd will just handle it automatically? -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: [email protected] Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
