Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:09:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Lukas Ertl <l.ertl@univie.ac.at> To: Doug Barton <DougB@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/51619 Message-ID: <20030508090240.S789@leelou.in.tern> In-Reply-To: <20030507225300.P9851@znfgre.qbhto.arg> References: <200305072229.h47MTDTh024656@beastie.mckusick.com> <20030507225300.P9851@znfgre.qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 May 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > Thanks for the historical perspective. I am not sure how big of a problem > my situation is, since it will only apply to people trying to run a > releng_4 fsck on a ufs2 filesystem under the special circumstances you > described. It will also affect people who try to mount a UFS2 filesystem in 4.x, as is stated in the PR, and probably it will affect every RELENG_4 program that tries to read a (UFS1) superblock. > However, if it's something we can prevent with relative ease, I > think it's worthwhile to do so. No sense loading the foot-shooting gun > with more bullets than absolutely necessary. That's true of course. I'm not sure about the necessity of such a fix either, but OTOH, I would expect newfs to really wipe everything. regards, le --=20 Lukas Ertl eMail: l.ertl@univie.ac.at UNIX-Systemadministrator Tel.: (+43 1) 4277-14073 Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID) Fax.: (+43 1) 4277-9140 der Universit=E4t Wien http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030508090240.S789>