From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Mar 31 16:21:58 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62CAF106566B
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:21:58 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mj@feral.com)
Received: from ns1.feral.com (ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27FB18FC13
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:21:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.0.102] (m206-63.dsl.tsoft.com [198.144.206.63])
	by ns1.feral.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2VGLvFe027137
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from mj@feral.com)
Message-ID: <4BB376A8.7060702@feral.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:22:00 -0700
From: Matthew Jacob <mj@feral.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
References: <4BA7B9E3.3080003@freebsd.org> <4BB36234.8070907@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <4BB36234.8070907@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Default is to whitelist mail, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3
	(ns1.feral.com [192.67.166.1]);
	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:21:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: geom_vfs: disallow multiple readonly mounts of a device
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:21:58 -0000


>> Because of this, I propose to disable shared mounting feature for time being.
>> In my opinion it is very unlikely that anybody depends on this feature now, but
>> nullfs can be used as its replacement.  In fact, it could be even more efficient
>> if the same files are access via different mount points.
>>      

For me using nulls is the key point. This allows you to affect the name 
space for various policy reasons.