Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:10:19 GMT From: "David D.W. Downey" <pgpkeys@pgpkeys.net> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/82720: <[patch] Incorrect help output from growfs.c and mkfs.c> Message-ID: <200506280810.j5S8AJhl052421@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/82720; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "David D.W. Downey" <pgpkeys@pgpkeys.net> To: <bug-followup@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Subject: Re: bin/82720: <[patch] Incorrect help output from growfs.c and mkfs.c> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:02:27 -0400 For the record, My rationale behind setting the Priority to serious is that if you do not know about fsck_ffs (which can be expected since the default and most known tool is fsck) then you will run into the issue of not knowing what to do to repair the broken system. Case in point, I ran into this problem when a -CURRENT system was unable to repair the default superblock. It kept spitting out FREE BLOK COUNT(S) WRONG IN SUPERBLOCK. SALVAGE? [no]. Needless to say I spent probably 45 minutes digging through the man pages such as fsck, bread, sbread, sbwrite, several lib pages, et cetera trying to figure out how to find info about the next superblock in order to fix the situation. Now I'm just one person. Think of the affect on say just 5,000 people worldwide with this issue, finally finding newfs only to find out the information it gives is incorrect. Now add in the fact there's no mention of fsck_ffs which _is_ the right tool to fix the SB using the SB info spit out by newfs. There's no logical connection to the correct tool, leaving people stranded. Small item, this patch, but big help for administrative flow and repair. -- David D.W. Downey
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506280810.j5S8AJhl052421>