[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gluster-devel] is umount supposed to work?

From: Amar Tumballi
Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] is umount supposed to work?
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 16:14:10 +0530


Replies inline.

I am still working on glusterfs/NetBSD, and it is getting close to something
actually usable. I still have a few issues, one of which is unmounting.

Thats a good news.
When I use umount(8), I send a FUSE_DESTROY to glusterfs. That has no
effect at all. Looking at the source, I can see that fuse_destroy()
just returns succes and do nothing.

Is it on purpose? What about adding a kill(getpid(), SIGTERM) here?
What is the prefered way of unmounting right now?

IMO its not on purpose. below patch should be better option than calling a kill().
diff --git a/xlators/mount/fuse/src/fuse-bridge.c b/xlators/mount/fuse/src/fuse-bridge.c
index dafc0a9..902c68a 100644
--- a/xlators/mount/fuse/src/fuse-bridge.c
+++ b/xlators/mount/fuse/src/fuse-bridge.c
@@ -2922,6 +2922,9 @@ fuse_destroy (xlator_t *this, fuse_in_header_t *finh, void *msg)
         send_fuse_err (this, finh, 0);
         GF_FREE (finh);
+        if (this)
+                this->fini (this);

Another problem: invoking glusterfs with -s and without --volfile-id
leads to a SIGSEGV because volfile_id is NULL. This can be fixed by
adding an error message if --volfile-id is supplied without -s. Another
approach would be to let the administrator supply the volfile_id in the
-s string, for instance with glusterfs -s address@hidden /mnt
(I suggest this syntax rather than just in case one
want to add support for specifying an alternate port some day).

Filed a bug here:

Patch sent to fix it:

With these things should be smooth for you.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]