From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 19:20:57 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA16604
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:20:57 -0700
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA16597
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 19:20:52 -0700
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id MAA31925; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:20:32 +1000
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:20:32 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199509060220.MAA31925@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

>If you'll rememebr, the clean flag wasn't in 1.x, so a "1.x fsck" will
>(correctly) fsck each time the system is booted.

The clean flag was in 1.1.5.  It is one of the fields that isn't
compared with the alternate superblock.  Forcing the comparison not to
see differences in the clean flag is the only support for the clean flag
in 1.1.5.

The 1.1.5 fsck fails on file systems that have been used under 2.x
because sees something _other_ than the clean flag being different.

Bruce