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

[Taras Savchuk]

On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.


PS: With '-b 160' option fsck done work well.