New newfs vs. half-baked disks patch

• Previous message: Mark Linimon: "Re: Patches to compile the kernel with Intel's C/C++ compiler"
• Next in thread: Bruce Evans: "Re: New newfs vs. half-baked disks patch"
• Reply: Bruce Evans: "Re: New newfs vs. half-baked disks patch"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

To: arch@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:52:05 -0800

I re-did the patch using a differing magic number, as suggested. This
approach works quite nicely. The patch is smaller and does more with
no kernel mods.

This patch does more because a filesystem partially created with newfs
now has an invalid magic number on the first superblock. This means
older kernels will not mount the filesystem and older fsck will at
least warn about not finding the first superblock.

This patch includes a change to fsck so it will recognize an incomplete
newfs filesystem, exiting with a unique status (11) and issuing the
message "This volume is incomplete, run newfs again."

The patch to newfs includes the -E flag to generate error conditions;
these changes will be committed separately. Barring lack of
objections, I'd like to commit this tomorrow.

Thanks to everyone who commented on the first round. This was my first
foray into filesystem programming since my Minix days and you were all
more than generous.

-- 
         "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?"
Wes Peters                                              wes@softweyr.com

_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

• text/x-diff attachment: newfs.patch

• Previous message: Mark Linimon: "Re: Patches to compile the kernel with Intel's C/C++ compiler"
• Next in thread: Bruce Evans: "Re: New newfs vs. half-baked disks patch"
• Reply: Bruce Evans: "Re: New newfs vs. half-baked disks patch"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]