From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 9 15:07:44 2003 Return-Path: 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 B905A37B401 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 15:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailbox.univie.ac.at (mail.univie.ac.at [131.130.1.27]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4B243FB1 for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 15:07:43 -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 h49M7Vc9132800; Sat, 10 May 2003 00:07:36 +0200 Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 00:07:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Lukas Ertl To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <14820.1052517474@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20030510000438.Y638@korben.in.tern> References: <14820.1052517474@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: mx1 4261; Body=2 Fuz1=2 Fuz2=2 cc: freebsd-fs@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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:07:45 -0000 Hi Poul, On Fri, 9 May 2003, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20030509234356.T638@korben.in.tern>, Lukas Ertl writes: > > > >wtfs() is of type static void, and just calls bwrite() from libufs, > >ignoring its return value. > > In the good old days, people could write any damn number they wanted in > a disklabel, and the kernel would let them. > > This check tried to make sure that the partition length picked up from > the disklabel, or entered as an argument actually makes sense as far > as you can actually write to the last sector. Ok, I see, thanks for the history lesson :-) > I'm not sure if this particular bit does anything at this point in > time, we may have caught the issue earlier in the process, because > today disk devices actually know how large they are. > > [...] > > syv# newfs -s 2049 md5 > newfs: /dev/md5: maximum file system size is 2048 > syv# But since this size check comes much earlier in the code, I guess the wtfs() call is useless and should be removed, shouldn't it? 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/