From: Goswin v. B. <gos...@we...> - 2013-05-08 09:24:05
|
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 08:28:32AM -0500, Archie Cobbs wrote: > I guess the lack of response means there is no active effort to fix this > bug. > > That's a real shame because this leads to filesystem corruption. I'd call > that a pretty serious bug. Shouldn't your filesystem have some locking mechanism to prevent it being accessed multiple times? For a block device based filesystem shouldn't the block device remain busy until the filesystem actualy finishes destroy()? So while the filesystem would be already umounted mounting it would still say EBUSY till it is safe to mount it again. MfG Goswin |