From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 22 13:06:16 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8FA1065670;
	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:06:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua)
Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116228FC1B;
	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:06:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua)
Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua
	[212.40.38.101])
	by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA16460;
	Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:06:13 +0300 (EEST)
	(envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua)
Message-ID: <49EF1645.70704@icyb.net.ua>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:06:13 +0300
From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090406)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
References: <49EDCA21.70908@icyb.net.ua>
	<gskrld$vo0$1@ger.gmane.org>	<49EDF80F.3070105@icyb.net.ua>
	<gsl446$vae$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <gsl446$vae$1@ger.gmane.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: glabel for ufs: size check is overzealous?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:06:16 -0000

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?

-- 
Andriy Gapon