In which case, nothing should be busy. "busy" <=> "something breaks if
unmounted". The mount point itself should be busy, though, I think -
eliminating a mount point with something mounted on would break things, I
presume?
> > > Doing replace (i.e. if everything can be umounted - do it and mount
> > > the new fs in place of the union) is attractive - we probably might
> > > treat the normal mount same way, which kills the "I've clicked in my
> > > point'n'drool krapplication ten times and it mounted CD ten times,
> > > waaaaaah" bug reports.
> >
> > Making the point'n'drool krapplication fail the second time it tries to
> > mount anything makes more sense, IMO - that way, however much the user
> > points and/or drools, they only have one thing mounted. (Ideally, the
>
> Erm... In the case of "replacement" semantics it would go
>
> <first point&drool> mounted /dev/cdrom on /cdrom
> <next point&drool> woops, already mounted something? umount and put /dev/cdrom
> on that (/cdrom) place. We are back to the same situation.
> ad infinitum...
I'd prefer:
mount /dev/cdrom on /cdrom ==> succeeds
mount /dev/cdrom on /cdrom ==> fails - /cdrom is busy
> [sweet memories of printer asking to insert paper, seventy identical
> ~30-page turds produced by TeX in the queue, very unhappy little Sun
> holding said queue and very annoyed luser sitting in 3 feet from printer
> and keeping fornic^Wclick on "print"...]
WinNT servers deal with that much more efficiently. The OS will repeatedly
submit the job to the queue anyway, leaving the luser free to go on and
break something else... :)
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/