From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 13 12:05:24 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id MAA09199 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA09192 for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA09364; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:02:57 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199609131902.MAA09364@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: NFS/mount bug??? To: walter@bios.unc.edu (Bruce Walter) Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:02:57 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Bruce Walter" at Sep 13, 96 01:16:17 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > Just as a little aside, I've seen this on Linux and NetBSD as well... On > > NetBSD it seems trouble is not far behind when you go to umount them... > > > > > > Just noticed an interesting thing... I typed mount -a twice (don't ask > > > why) and all-of-a-sudden, mount shows the following: > > So far, after a couple-or-ten experiments, no troubles have arisen from > the multiple mounts/umounts, so it appears we're a click better off than > NetBSD. I seem to remember the NFS code being a real bear though, so > I'll leave it up to the experts... ;) Mount points are allowed to be reused. This is intentional, and should work for NetBSD as well (or they need to fix it). This is part of the stacking architecture. Consider: 1) Mount msdosfs on /dos 2) Mount umsdos stacking layer on /dos as a consumer of the msdosfs previously mounted on /dos Voila, umsdos support in a stacking layer instead of as a bunch of conditional hacks to msdosfs. It's an error for mount -a to cause this, though, since the fstab mounts should be considered an "instance" for the purposes of comparison, and the remount (effectively from the same input) should have been ignored ("this fstab line is already a mount instance"). Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.