From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May  9 15:47:44 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0906637B401; Fri,  9 May 2003 15:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mailbox.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D4EC843FBD; Fri,  9 May 2003 15:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from l.ertl@univie.ac.at)
Received: from dialin202.cc.univie.ac.at (dialin202.cc.univie.ac.at
	[131.130.202.202])
	by mailbox.univie.ac.at (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h49MlVc9032714;
	Sat, 10 May 2003 00:47:35 +0200
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 00:47:26 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <15610.1052520021@critter.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20030510004537.H638@korben.in.tern>
References: <15610.1052520021@critter.freebsd.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
X-DCC-ZID-Univie-Metrics: unet 4261; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
cc: jmallett@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: newfs: useless/bogus check if new last block can be accessed? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
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: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:47:44 -0000

On Sat, 10 May 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> In message <20030510002107.T638@korben.in.tern>, Lukas Ertl writes:
>
> >I don't think it does any harm to keep it (WRT to getting a working
> >filesystem), but since I don't see how it would signal an error (and thi=
s
> >is why I posted the question) I'd vote for removing the check.
> >
> >And while we're here: shouldn't wtfs() actually give a return value and
> >not be just static void? (In terms of: "be a good programmer and check t=
he
> >return values of your syscalls...") I think it's called often enough in
> >newfs to qualify for a check :-)
>
> Get in touch with jmallett@freebsd.org who has been actively trying to
> improve the UFS/FFS tools for some time, it sounds like the two of you
> are on the same page :-)

:-)

Ok, although I guess she's on this list anyway, I'm CC'ing her and hope
she's interested if I can come up with some fixes...

regards,
le

--=20
Lukas Ertl                             eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at
UNIX-Systemadministrator               Tel.:  (+43 1) 4277-14073
Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID)       Fax.:  (+43 1) 4277-9140
der Universit=E4t Wien                   http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/