From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 31 15:50:01 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@smarthost.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D32FE5BD for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206c::16:87]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A56F42835 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r7VFo1SC063254 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r7VFo1Sa063253; Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 GMT Message-Id: <201308311550.r7VFo1Sa063253@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Moritz Wilhelmy Subject: Re: kern/162591: [nullfs] cross-filesystem nullfs does not work as expected X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Moritz Wilhelmy List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:50:01 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/162591; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Moritz Wilhelmy To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, Gleb Kurtsou Cc: Subject: Re: kern/162591: [nullfs] cross-filesystem nullfs does not work as expected Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:46:06 +0200 On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 16:23:47 +0200, Gleb Kurtsou wrote: > That is expected behaviour, according to mount_nullfs(8): -snip- Alright. Care to close the PR then? > I think writing a small script to do nested mounts/unmounts that suites > your needs would be the best option here. That's what I've done. Thanks!