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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a78074950511060705r500e0789y786af5d937bf1680>