From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 14:49:00 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id OAA07400
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:49:00 -0700
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA07392
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:48:52 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA00136
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:36:20 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id QAA22315; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:02:53 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509052102.QAA22315@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 16:02:53 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: peter@taronga.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509051732.KAA23660@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Sep 5, 95 10:32:51 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 364       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> > 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?".

It isn't.

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

Doesn't "sync" update the backup superblock anyway?