Alex Popa wrote: > It seems the problem is partly caused by newfs on -current, which does > not remove the old UFS1 magic when creating an UFS2 superblock at a > different location. This leftover magic is seen by the -stable kernel > and therefore used. Hi Alex, could you try this patch to newfs(8)? It wipes the old UFS1 superblock at location SBLOCK_UFS1 before writing the new superblock at location SBLOCK_UFS2. ---8<--- Index: sbin/newfs/mkfs.c =================================================================== RCS file: /u/cvs/cvs/src/sbin/newfs/mkfs.c,v retrieving revision 1.74 diff -u -r1.74 mkfs.c --- sbin/newfs/mkfs.c 22 Feb 2003 23:26:11 -0000 1.74 +++ sbin/newfs/mkfs.c 26 Apr 2003 20:54:56 -0000 _at__at_ -113,6 +113,7 _at__at_ quad_t sizepb; int width; char tmpbuf[100]; /* XXX this will break in about 2,500 years */ + char dummy[SBLOCKSIZE]; /* * Our blocks == sector size, and the version of UFS we are using is _at__at_ -479,8 +480,13 _at__at_ sblock.fs_old_cstotal.cs_nifree = sblock.fs_cstotal.cs_nifree; sblock.fs_old_cstotal.cs_nffree = sblock.fs_cstotal.cs_nffree; } - if (!Nflag) + if (!Nflag) { + if (Oflag != 1) { + memset(dummy, '\0', SBLOCKSIZE); + bwrite(&disk, SBLOCK_UFS1, dummy, SBLOCKSIZE); + } sbwrite(&disk, 0); + } for (i = 0; i < sblock.fs_cssize; i += sblock.fs_bsize) wtfs(fsbtodb(&sblock, sblock.fs_csaddr + numfrags(&sblock, i)), sblock.fs_cssize - i < sblock.fs_bsize ? ---8<--- best regards, le -- Lukas Ertl eMail: l.ertl_at_univie.ac.at UNIX-Systemadministrator Tel.: (+43 1) 4277-14073 Zentraler Informatikdienst (ZID) Fax.: (+43 1) 4277-9140 der Universität Wien http://mailbox.univie.ac.at/~le/Received on Sat Apr 26 2003 - 12:01:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:05 UTC