Re: Experimental patches for linux usability

[Julien Olivier <julo altern org>]

That's great news ! Thank you for your work.

Could you give me a link to the current source code (if any) or is it
still not worth looking at it ?

On Thu, 2003-08-21 at 07:19, Samphan Raruenrom wrote:
> Julien Olivier wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > As a user I think that would be a great think ! But you still have to
> > remember that the problem also exists for floppies and USB storage
> > media. The problem is that floppies and USB storage media aren't
> > physically locked. That means that, even if they are still mounted, you
> > can remove them easily. But removing a floppy or a USB storage edia
> > while mounted can be dangerous.
> > 
> > So, my question is: wouldn't it be possible to extend your solution to
> > floppies and USB storage media ?
> 
> Hmm... Actually, yes.  I also have 2 other experimental work to
> accomplish the whole requirement :-
> 
> 1) usb auto-mount/umount - base on linux hot-plug
> 
> The rough result (on my machine) is that when you plug a usb
> drive (or cdrom), it'll be auto-mounted, its icon instantly appear
> on GNOME desktop. When you unplug it, it'll be auto-umounted
> and its icon disappear.
> 
> A lot of work NEED to be done on the kernel side because
> you have to be able to force-umount it in case any file is still open.
> I remember force-umount implement only for NFS? maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> 2) to be able to mount vfat synchronously
> OR some deamon (magicdev?) to flush vfat buffer periodically
> 
> Many users experience problem with incomplete write because of
> linux buffer optimization. VFAT driver never write anything
> to the disk when a program tell it to. It just set the dirty flag.
> I think it is possible to add the optional mount mode "sync"
> to vfat (currently only nfs support this mode). The patch will be
> surprisingly small but I don't know whether the kernel people will
> accept the idea. Maybe it's stupid to mount a disk-base filesystem
> synchronously (as oppose to nfs) so that's why they not implement it
> before?
> 
>