From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed May  7 22:19:08 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CC2B937B401; Wed,  7 May 2003 22:19:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C7AE743FE3; Wed,  7 May 2003 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h485J5Lr077214;
	Thu, 8 May 2003 07:19:05 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@McKusick.COM>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 07 May 2003 15:29:13 PDT."
             <200305072229.h47MTDTh024656@beastie.mckusick.com> 
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 07:19:05 +0200
Message-ID: <77213.1052371145@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: DougB@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
Subject: Re: bin/51619 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 05:19:09 -0000

In message <200305072229.h47MTDTh024656@beastie.mckusick.com>, Kirk McKusick wr
ites:
>At one time I had the suggested change that you made in bin/51619
>in the FreeBSD-5.0 newfs program. The problem with that change is
>that the bootstrap on some architectures now exceeds 8K which means
>that instead of zeroing an old superblock you destroy the boot code.

Actually we have managed to get it down to 8k on all architectures
as far as I belive.

Anyway, if we check that it is a valid superblock before zeroing
it, I don't think we will put any boot code in harms way.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.