>From: Aurelien Degremont - Stagiaire <degremont@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Dean Roehrich a écrit :
>> There's a comment header for dm_send_unmount_event() that talks about some
>> issues with this being a synchronous event. The spec still says it
>> is synchronous:
>>
>> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9657099/toc.htm
>>
>> This looks like another case where the spec can cause a headache.
>
>Maybe if the event is raised sooner, before the dmapi handle is
>disabled, this could solved the issue.
>(dm_path_to_fshandle() should still be runnable as long as the unmount
>event was not replied, or, at least, delivered but in outstanding state).
>
>I have't look at the code, i don't know whether it is possible or not.
Well, let's back up. Why is your HSM application not present? Why did it
destroy its sessions, but not unregister the events it had put on the
filesystem?
Dean
|