>> This actually is useful; I've occasionally wanted the same piece of
>> disk space mounted in two different places.  (Fortunately, when I've
>> wanted this, I've wanted both mounts to be read-only....)
> In this case I think the safer method would be to use mount_null,
> unless you need both to be an actual ffs mount for some reason.

I've been burnt too often by nullfs (usually locking issues) for me to
be comfortable trusting it.

And provided all the mounts are read-only, really, what's unsafe about
mounting the same piece of disk multiple times?

Also, multiple FFS mounts gives capabilities that nullfs mounts don't.
In particular, they could be done with disjoint root paths, in which
case a nullfs mount _can't_ substitute for it (while I seldom do that,
since I seldom have occasion to mount unusual root paths, the
capability is there, and every once in a while I need it).

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B