From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 22 16:55:31 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5489D37B401; Thu, 22 May 2003 16:55:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from brian.webcom.it (194-185-205-180.f5.ngi.it [194.185.205.180]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E3B743F75; Thu, 22 May 2003 16:55:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andrea@webcom.it) Received: by brian.webcom.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 45B152A; Fri, 23 May 2003 01:55:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 01:55:25 +0200 From: Andrea Campi To: Nate Lawson Message-ID: <20030522235524.GB6396@webcom.it> References: <20030522183930.564EF37B49D@hub.freebsd.org> <20030522161035.X95941@root.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030522161035.X95941@root.org> X-Echelon: BND CIA NSA Mossad KGB MI6 IRA detonator nuclear assault strike User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: Doug Barton cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/newfs mkfs.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 23:55:31 -0000 On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:14:51PM -0700, Nate Lawson wrote: > On Thu, 22 May 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > > This patch is a more advanced version than the one originally submitted. > > Lukas improved it based on feedback from Kirk, and testing by me. It > > blanks all UFS1 superblocks (if any) during a UFS2 newfs, thereby causing > > fsck's that are not UFS2 aware to generate the "SEARCH FOR ALTERNATE > > SUPER-BLOCK FAILED" message, and exit without damaging the fs. > > It's great to see user-friendly fixes hitting the tree. We really need > more seatbelts. What about actually making the -STABLE fsck UFS2 aware, at least to the point of printing "This is an UFS2 fs, can't check it" instead? Without looking at the code, this sounds trivial to me; and while it can't help with already installed systems, it would still be useful. Bye, Andrea -- Press every key to continue.