Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:10:54 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mountd changes Message-ID: <199502230010.RAA16145@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> "Re: mountd changes" (Feb 22, 4:00pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. If that is the case, (and we don't have 'multiple' copies of /usr/local mounted each time), then shouldn't it be up to mount/umount to do the right thing with respect to df and friends? If something is already in the tree already, then why repeat it? It muddies up the output when we have 10 version of: /usr/local/X11R6 127143 64985 55800 54% /mnt /usr/local/X11R6 127143 64985 55800 54% /mnt /usr/local/X11R6 127143 64985 55800 54% /mnt /usr/local/X11R6 127143 64985 55800 54% /mnt /usr/local/X11R6 127143 64985 55800 54% /mnt in df's output. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199502230010.RAA16145>