Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 19:12:46 -0500 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mountd changes Message-ID: <9502230012.AA09145@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199502230010.RAA16145@trout.sri.MT.net> References: <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> <199502230010.RAA16145@trout.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:10:54 -0700, Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> said: > 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 Well, there are two points here: 1) In the specific case of the null filesystem, `df' has no way of knowing that the fsstat information for `/mnt' was faked up by nullfs from the information provided by `/usr/local'. 2) In general, all `df' does is iterate through the mount list and get the stats for each one. I don't think you can make it smart enough to do what you want without also making it stupid enough to mistakenly omit two filesystems that look the same but really aren't. It just doesn't have enough information, and arguably it shouldn't. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9502230012.AA09145>