From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Sep  6 04:45:55 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id EAA13283
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 04:45:55 -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 EAA13277
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 04:45:50 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA06258
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:31:46 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id GAA14651; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:11:53 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509061111.GAA14651@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: Bad superblock?
To: terry@lambert.org (Terry Lambert)
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 06:11:52 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: mpp@mpp.minn.net, peter@taronga.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <199509060142.SAA25004@phaeton.artisoft.com> from "Terry Lambert" at Sep 5, 95 06:42:12 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 417       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk

> Peter wants the fsck to honor the clean flag, but doesn't want to update
> to a file system type that supports clean flags in the first place.

No, I don't want the fsck to honor the clean flag. Never said I did.

I want it to *ignore* it, along with any other fields it doesn't understand.
Alternatively, if the superblock doesn't get written normally on a umount,
the clean flag shouldn't have been there either.