Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why is there a mount but no unmount?
Message-ID: <8804111841.AA02168@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 11 Apr 88 18:41:02 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 14

:Bottom line is that if you're going to prevent some process from using a 
:lock on a device which is no longer valid, you've got to notify the 
:process somehow, and I don't think there's any way to do that.
:
:I'm sure there are other reasons, but this is one I've always assumed was
:the major factor. It would make it nearly impossible to guarantee that an 
:unmount command would work all the time, or at least that it would fail in
:such a way that a relatively non-technical user would be able to determine
:why it failed and what s/he could (or couldn't) do about it.

	The unmount command would simply return an error if there were
any outstanding locks ... simple as that.  Apart from that, there is 
no reason whatsoever for not having such a command.  

				-Matt