Re: umount failure

David Woodhouse (Dave@imladris.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 22 May 1998 21:26:05 +0200

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Ralf Wierzbicki: "Re: Linux + Sparc = total failure?."
Previous message: C. Scott Ananian: "Re: size of files in /proc"
Maybe in reply to: Stefan Monnier: "umount failure"

sim@netnation.com said:
> On Wed, 20 May 1998, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > However, we might need to add a new syscall for it. umount(2) currently
> > only takes a single argument: the name of the device/filesystem to be
> > unmounted.
>
> It looks like somebody planned this:
>
> [sroot@blue:/root]# umount -f
> umount: forced umount not supported yet

That's umount(8), not umount(2)

---- ---- ----
David Woodhouse, Robinson College, CB3 9AN, England. (+44) 0976 658355
Dave@imladris.demon.co.uk http://www.imladris.demon.co.uk
finger pgp@dwmw2.robinson.cam.ac.uk for PGP key.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

Next message: Ralf Wierzbicki: "Re: Linux + Sparc = total failure?."
Previous message: C. Scott Ananian: "Re: size of files in /proc"
Maybe in reply to: Stefan Monnier: "umount failure"