From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov  2 01:19:25 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C0C0C16A4D0; Sun,  2 Nov 2003 01:19:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from segfault.kiev.ua (segfault.kiev.ua [193.193.193.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E4AA543F3F; Sun,  2 Nov 2003 01:19:23 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua)
Received: (from uucp@localhost)
	by segfault.kiev.ua (8) with UUCP id hB29JJCd068004;
	Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:19:19 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua)
Received: (from netch@localhost)
	by iv.nn.kiev.ua (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) id hA29I9d5000349;
	Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:18:09 +0200 (EET)
	(envelope-from netch)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:18:09 +0200
From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@netch.kiev.ua>
To: Dan Strick <strick@covad.net>
Message-ID: <20031102091809.GA310@iv.nn.kiev.ua>
References: <200310221014.h9MAEX3V001280@ice.nodomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200310221014.h9MAEX3V001280@ice.nodomain>
X-42: On
Organization: Dark side of coredump
cc: dan@ice.nodomain
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: UFS file system problem in either stable or current
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 09:19:26 -0000

 Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:14:33, strick (Dan Strick) wrote about "UFS file system problem in either stable or current": 

DS> There seems to be an inconsistency between release 4.9-RC and 5.1 ufs
DS> support.  If I fsck the same ufs (type 1 of course) file system on
DS> both releases, each claims that the other has left incorrect
DS> summary data in the superblock.  Presumably only one can be correct.
DS> I just don't know which to blame.

Does this require explicit fsck?
I have dual-booting between 4.9-release (and all previous 4.* releases earlier)
and 5.1 (of 20030526) with shared disks and boot checking required in fstab;
sometimes one of them crash and forced checking is made; neither 4.* nor 5.1
claims superblock is bad.


-netch-