From owner-freebsd-fs Thu Jun 21 9:42:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from sneakerz.org (sneakerz.org [216.33.66.254]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03EC237B406 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@sneakerz.org) Received: by sneakerz.org (Postfix, from userid 1092) id 650B25D01F; Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:42:10 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:42:10 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: Stefan Parvu , fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: softupdates questions Message-ID: <20010621114210.T4543@sneakerz.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: ; from des@ofug.org on Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:34:00PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org * Dag-Erling Smorgrav [010621 05:34] wrote: > Stefan Parvu writes: > > > 3. There is some concern about to integrate dirpref to FreeBSD . Why is > > this ? Are any specific changes to fsck or other tools regarding dirpref ? > > It was integrated in early April. I can't remember there being any > controversy over it. old fsck + new dirpref == spammed superblock, meaning that some fields required by the new dirpref would be zero'd after fsck, this would cause a divide by zero fault in the kernel. there was a patch added to recognize spammed dirpref values and reinit them, so this is no longer a problem. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message