From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep  5 20:45:16 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id UAA21287
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:45:16 -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 UAA21270
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 20:45:09 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA03407
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Tue, 5 Sep 1995 22:23:43 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA03427; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:22:09 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509060222.VAA03427@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 21:22:08 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: peter@taronga.com, terry@lambert.org, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509060020.RAA24680@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Sep 5, 95 05:20:53 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 552       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> The problem is that fsck compares the whole superblock instead of just the
> areas that it cares about.

Yes, that's what I was asking about.

> Personally, I would recommend allowing it to do this unless you choose
> to upgrade the FS to the new layout or modify the fsck, making it an
> "enhanced 1.x FS" instead of a "1.x FS" or "2.x FS".  Of course, I'd
> advocate staying with the mainline code: update the disk or live with
> the fsck.

The problem is it doesn't just do an fsck. It barfs and forces a manual fsck.

The automatic fsck is fine.