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

[Xin LI]

Hi, Yar,

On 11/6/05, Yar Tikhiy <yar at comp.chem.msu.su> wrote:
[snip]
> Isn't the type, UFS1 or UFS2, indicated by a magic number in the
> superblock itself?  I used to believe so.  If it's true, fsck cannot
> know the FS type prior to locating a superblock copy.  OTOH, with
> UFS2 having become popular, fsck might try both locations, 32 and 160.
> Care to file a PR?

That's correct.  Fortunately, given that we have some ways to validate
whether the superblock is valid, it is not too hard to automatically
detect which type the FS actually is.

Cheers,