-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 12:31:20AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> IMHO DeviceKit should just unmount it itself and notify the
desktop that it
> has unmounted the device so the desktop can report it (or
ignore it if it
> doesn't know about the event). I don't see why we need to
add code to every
> desktop to listen for a "please unmount me" event and
send
an unmount
> request back when this could just be handled within
DeviceKit. Or even
> within the kernel for that matter, do we really need a
roundtrip through
> userspace for this? When and why would we ever want to do
anything *other*
> than unmounting the device when this event triggers?
Because you might want to warn the user that they have
unsaved work that
will be lost if they continue?
Isn't there "Save As..." for saving it? If not, I smell a bug
report. When I'm working over sshfs and the network goes down,
my editor still works with the file, the actual save is what
fails.
> An additional problem is: what if the unmount fails due to
open files? Your
> suggestion to just kill the applications sounds really
broken to me. A
> forced unmount at kernel level and failing any attempts to
further access
> that file just like what happens when an NFS mount goes
offline sounds like
> a better solution to me.
There are alternatives, like revoking the filehandles or
prompting the
user to close the application themselves. This is the same
problem faced
when unmounting any device.
Umm, Windows locks files when they're opened. AFAIK, Linux
doesn't enforce this.
A similar problem is this:
mkdir foo
touch foo/bar
kwrite foo/bar &
rm -rf foo
Should kwrite be killed because rm killed the directory?
- --Ben
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkpKtXkACgkQiPi+MRHG3qTVrgCfXM3ItQpUBYzK1JT91RoJ4rjy
fNEAoKEkgrII4JNkaundDYMv76fTAD69
=qUfz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----