Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Christoph Rohland
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Same cam be applied to shm ? Thus kernel Documentation/Changes > should be changed: [...] > > none/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 > > to > > shm/dev/shmshm defaults0 0 > Yes, I thought that I changed that :-( I al

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread J . A . Magallon
On 2001.01.11 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The "none" bit puzzles me the most. > > It is a common misconfiguration. Given a line > > device dir type options garbage > > in /etc/fstab, some umount versions will complain "device busy" > when the umount fails. Thus, it is better to use > >

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread David Ford
"Udo A. Steinberg" wrote: > "Udo A. Steinberg" wrote: > > > > The very strange stuff is umount at reboot: > > > > umount: none busy - remounted read-only > > umount: /: device is busy > > Remounting root-filesystem read-only > > mount: / is busy > > Rebooting. Are you using devfs and do kernel t

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > These days umount is done by directory, not by device, > since a device may be mounted multiple times, so > I expect the silly message is gone. > (Is your umount recent?) > > [But this is only about the "none". I don't know what is > wrong in your situation.] My umo

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Andries . Brouwer
> The "none" bit puzzles me the most. It is a common misconfiguration. Given a line device dir type options garbage in /etc/fstab, some umount versions will complain "device busy" when the umount fails. Thus, it is better to use proc/proc proc devpts /dev/pts devpts instea

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Andreas Dilger
Udo, you write: > Anyway, disabled both lpd and httpd from the startup scripts > and now the bug is triggered *every* time. I cannot reboot > a single time without partitions being busy. When neither > lpd nor httpd run, fsck finds nothing wrong. > > The very strange stuff is umount at reboot: >

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Alan Cox
> I've checked a couple of other machines, different setups etc. > all with -ac6 and all show this behavior - also the umount stuff. Wait for -ac7 and see if that fixes it. I think I know whats up there - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a me

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
"Udo A. Steinberg" wrote: > > The very strange stuff is umount at reboot: > > umount: none busy - remounted read-only > umount: /: device is busy > Remounting root-filesystem read-only > mount: / is busy > Rebooting. I just noticed another strange effect: ps uxa misses a couple dozen processes

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
Alexander Viro wrote: > > umount: none busy - remounted read-only > > > The "none" bit puzzles me the most. /etc/fstab and /etc/mtab > > look perfectly ok. > > > > Has anyone got an idea? Everything worked well with 2.4.0 and > > Alan's tree up to -ac4, didn't try ac5, and ac6 is what messes > >

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Alexander Viro
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Udo A. Steinberg wrote: > > /dev/hdb1: Inode 522901, i_blocks is 64, should be 8. FIXED > umount: none busy - remounted read-only > The "none" bit puzzles me the most. /etc/fstab and /etc/mtab > look perfectly ok. > > Has anyone got an idea? Everything worked well with

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Udo A. Steinberg
> /dev/hdb1: Inode 522901, i_blocks is 64, should be 8. FIXED Ok, culprit identified: /var/spool/lpd/lpd.lock On another partition I had the same problem with httpd's error_log. Since both of those seem to be log- and lock-files, maybe there's something wrong with file locking? Anyway, disable

Re: Strange umount problem in latest 2.4.0 kernels

2001-01-11 Thread Alexander Viro
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Daniel Phillips wrote: > "Udo A. Steinberg" wrote: > > Upon fscking after reboot, I always have errors on a > > single inode and it's always the same one: > > > > /dev/hdb1: Inode 522901, i_blocks is 64, should be 8. FIXED > > > > Can someone tell me an easy and reliable