May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

[Taras Savchuk]

My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate
super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2
(my file system) alternate super block is usually located in block 160 (For
UFS1 - in 32). So the question is: why fsck trying to find alternate
superblock in wrong block for UFS2? I can suppose, that fsck dont know file
system type (UFS1 or UFS2) while checking, but such assumption seems to be
wrong.

fsck with '-b 160' optione works well.