From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Feb 22 16:00:50 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id QAA10564 for current-outgoing; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:00:50 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA10548; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:00:46 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: mountd changes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Feb 95 17:59:11 EST."
             <9502222259.AA08835@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> 
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:00:45 -0800
Message-ID: <10546.793497645@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: current-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Sure, makes perfect sense.  Just as if I said:
> 
> root@khavrinen$ mount -t null /usr/local/X11R6 /mnt
> root@khavrinen$ df
> Filesystem                1K-blocks     Used    Avail Capacity  Mounted on
> /dev/wd0h                    127143    64985    55800    54%    /usr/local
> /usr/local/X11R6             127143    64985    55800    54%    /mnt

Hmmmm.  I guess it just seems wrong to me that you should be able to
overlay a mountpoint to no good effect, but then again I suppose
you're also right in that the "layering" paradigm (e.g. last mounted
fs wins) is at least preserved in the same way that it would be for,
say, a union mount.

Ok, upon further reflection, I stand corrected.  I guess I'll go close
that PR! :-)

					Jordan