From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Sep  4 22:35:48 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id WAA03082
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:35:48 -0700
Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA02999
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:35:09 -0700
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11])
          by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id JAA13684
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Mon, 4 Sep 1995 09:53:43 -0700
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA16835
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for hackers@freebsd.org); Mon, 4 Sep 1995 11:32:38 -0500
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id MAA00208 for hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 4 Sep 1995 12:06:29 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 12:06:29 -0500
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Message-Id: <199509041706.MAA00208@bonkers.taronga.com>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Bad superblock?
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I take it 2.0.5 updates the clean flag in the superblock but not in
the first alternate, so when 1.1 looks it sees the clean flag doesn't
match and so the superblocks don't match. Is that correct?

If so, is there any reason it can't write the clean flag in the first
alternate superblock as well?