From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 10:37:49 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA06940
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 10:37:49 -0700
Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA06933
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 10:37:39 -0700
Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA23660; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 10:32:51 -0700
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Message-Id: <199509051732.KAA23660@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 10:32:51 -0700 (MST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509041706.MAA00208@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Sep 4, 95 12:06:29 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 716       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> I take it 2.0.5 updates the clean flag in the superblock but not in
> the first alternate, so when 1.1 looks it sees the clean flag doesn't
> match and so the superblocks don't match. Is that correct?
> 
> If so, is there any reason it can't write the clean flag in the first
> alternate superblock as well?

To answer this, ask yourself "why is my first superblock bad?".

If the answer could be "controller failure" than the reason it doesn't
update the backup superblocks should be obvious.

If you fsck with a backup superblock, the clean flag will be set in
the backup.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.