Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:11:02 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org Subject: Re: glabel for ufs: size check is overzealous? Message-ID: <49EF1766.7030401@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <9bbcef730904220608y73cbf2d2s6921b05c1978a121@mail.gmail.com> References: <49EDCA21.70908@icyb.net.ua> <gskrld$vo0$1@ger.gmane.org> <49EDF80F.3070105@icyb.net.ua> <gsl446$vae$1@ger.gmane.org> <49EF1645.70704@icyb.net.ua> <9bbcef730904220608y73cbf2d2s6921b05c1978a121@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 22/04/2009 16:08 Ivan Voras said the following: > 2009/4/22 Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>: >> on 21/04/2009 21:43 Ivan Voras said the following: >>> Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> I don't see why it should and - no, it actually does not. >>>> fsck checks only filesystem's internal consistency, it doesn't check media size, etc. >>> Well yes, if the number of blocks is really incorrect it should be >>> visible from the arrangement of the metadata but still - that makes the >>> field almost useless doesn't it? >> How do you mean? >> The field tells the filesystem size, how it can be useless? > > If nothing checks it and everything works, I'd say it's usefulness is > a bit limited... ufs driver doesn't check it, the driver *uses* it, so... :-) -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49EF1766.7030401>