From owner-freebsd-current Wed Feb 22 16:07:43 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id QAA10831 for current-outgoing; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:07:43 -0800 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA10823; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 16:07:28 -0800 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA16145; Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:10:54 -0700 Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:10:54 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199502230010.RAA16145@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" "Re: mountd changes" (Feb 22, 4:00pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: mountd changes Cc: current@FreeBSD.org 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. 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