On Tue, 11.09.12 16:06, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ([email protected]) wrote:
> > Yes, this seems right. > > > > Now, the question is what to do about it... I really have no nice way > > out here short of biting the bullet and adding the ability of allowing > > configuration of shutdown ordering that is not just the inverse of the > > startup ordering. Then we could still allow the mount to be unordered > > against remote-fs at startup but order it at shutdown. > > > > Hmm, Michal, Kay, do you guys have any suggestions what we could do here? > > What about retrying the unmounting after a delay if EBUSY is encountered? > sysvinit scripts seem to do that usually. I think we really should try hard to avoid things like that for the "clean" code paths. But dunno, maybe relying on MNT_DETACH might be a good idea here? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
