newfs and mount vs. half-baked disks

Gordon Tetlow gordont at
Mon Nov 10 09:16:22 PST 2003

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 09:43:34AM -0800, Wes Peters wrote:
> I found an unused field called "fs_state" and used that, as Kirk 
> suggested.  Here's the new patch, which changes fsck to notice the 
> fs_state and doesn't require re-writing all of the superblocks.
> This patch adds a -E (generate errors) option to fsck, causing fsck to 
> exit at various stages or to otherwise leave the state of fs_state and 
> fs_clean in other than pristine conditions.  I will, of course, commit 
> the -E changes separately from the fs_state changes.
> Thanks in advance for reviewing.  And yes, I did manage to attach the 
> patch this time.  Doh!

After a cursory glance, a couple of nits. Perhaps ErrorFlag should be
Eflag to be consistent with the style of the rest of the source? Also,
your error reporting in fsck_ffs is fs.state != 0 is less than obvious:
"superblock %d is not finished" Perhaps it could be "superblock %d is in
an inconsistent state, this is probably due to a premature exit of newfs"
or some such message.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-arch mailing list