From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May  9 15:40:26 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CF8737B401
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 May 2003 15:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF0243FAF
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 May 2003 15:40:23 -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 h49MeLxa015611;
	Sat, 10 May 2003 00:40:21 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 10 May 2003 00:31:15 +0200."
             <20030510002107.T638@korben.in.tern> 
Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 00:40:21 +0200
Message-ID: <15610.1052520021@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: newfs: useless/bogus check if new last block can be accessed? 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:40:26 -0000

In message <20030510002107.T638@korben.in.tern>, Lukas Ertl writes:

>I don't think it does any harm to keep it (WRT to getting a working
>filesystem), but since I don't see how it would signal an error (and this
>is why I posted the question) I'd vote for removing the check.
>
>And while we're here: shouldn't wtfs() actually give a return value and
>not be just static void? (In terms of: "be a good programmer and check the
>return values of your syscalls...") I think it's called often enough in
>newfs to qualify for a check :-)

Get in touch with jmallett@freebsd.org who has been actively trying to
improve the UFS/FFS tools for some time, it sounds like the two of you
are on the same page :-)

-- 
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.