Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 23:05:28 +0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk@gmail.com> Subject: Re: May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ] Message-ID: <a78074950511060705r500e0789y786af5d937bf1680@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051106144917.GA81664@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <84099c3d0511030325q6d1df92ag77310ff1b03a2d15@mail.gmail.com> <84099c3d0511030425q3592a288he254cb5f97f976b6@mail.gmail.com> <20051106144917.GA81664@comp.chem.msu.su>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi, Yar, On 11/6/05, Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> wrote: [snip] > Isn't the type, UFS1 or UFS2, indicated by a magic number in the > superblock itself? I used to believe so. If it's true, fsck cannot > know the FS type prior to locating a superblock copy. OTOH, with > UFS2 having become popular, fsck might try both locations, 32 and 160. > Care to file a PR? That's correct. Fortunately, given that we have some ways to validate whether the superblock is valid, it is not too hard to automatically detect which type the FS actually is. Cheers,home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a78074950511060705r500e0789y786af5d937bf1680>