What can I do to help the petition? All points in this petition are WELL ARGUED and EXTREMELY TRUE. El mié, 09-06-2004 a las 09:37, nf escribió: > On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 19:00, Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) wrote: > > I only see a challenge-response mechanism working as a long term > > solution. Eject requests (system or user-initiated) *have*, at some > > point, to begin some process in-kernel that prepares the computer for CD > > ejection, and does WHATEVER is required to let the user eject the > > CD-ROM. > > > > Or any other device. Let's face it, device removals happen, and the > > system has to handle expected (cd-rom pushbutton press) and unexpected > > (yank of an usb device) failure from components, but it doesn't. The > > kernel does not handle either case gracefully, locking CD-ROMS when > > mounted and with open files, and sometimes disabling the USB hub when > > pulling a drive out. And when I say gracefully, I mean zero data > > corruption *and* minimum fuss for the user. > > > We're not asking for the people at linux-kernel to "bend over", nor > > should we "bend over" either. It's got to be a win-win solution! But, > > just as we have to keep them in mind, so do they need to keep us in > > mind. Linus has expressed his interest in desktop Linux, I'm sure he'll > > be positive on any proposed solution (so long as it is smart =). > > > > > > A kind of "petition"-page which deals with all the "umount"-related issues would be good. > What do you think? Fixing those problems seems essential for the linux desktop. > Something to host on fd.org? > (I have tried to collect some links on http://www.scheinwelt.at/~norbertf/wbumount/ already). > > I believe there are four main topics which need to be discussed on such a page: > > > A) Clean umount (option for Read-Write devices, like USB sticks): > > -->A1 Directory monitoring and umount-blocking. The fam/dnotify/inotify/nonotify story. > > -->A2 Umount blocking by desktop applications in general. > My proposal: An interactive tool like "wbumount". > > > B) Device removal ("hot-unplugging") & forced umount. > > -->B1 The "Let's face it" issue: Removing devices without prior umounting. > Removable devices should be treated by the kernel like > network filesystems (They can get detached by the user at any time and any state). > That means: All drivers need timeouts. > I don't see the point in locking the tray of read-only devices like cd-roms for instance. > > -->B2 Forced unmount (umount -f): Beeing able to shut down a filesystem, no matter which state it is in. > > > Norbert > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) GPG key ID: 0xC1033CAD at keyserver.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente