> > "Darrin B. Jewell" <dbj@netbsd.org> writes:
> > > I added the following to src/UPDATING
> > >
> > > 20040109:
> > >         Compatibility for old ffs superblock layouts has been
> > >         added, and the restrictive fsck checks have been reenabled
> > >         when using those layouts.  If you have been using -current
> > >         since 20030402, you may find that fsck again signals fatal
> > >         superblock mismatches.  To work around, you can use
> > >         fsck -b 32 to restore an alternate superblock.
> > 
> > Actually, it is fsck_ffs. I just found that out the hard way hitting
> > my head against the wall because fsck doesn't have an -b option.
> 
> Yes, you are correct.  I should have said fsck_ffs, and I will
> fix the UPDATING file.

	i see the following on dmesg (for / and /usr partition),
	however, i do not see "VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK ..." message on
	fsck_ffs -n -f.  fsck_ffs -b 32 -c 4 had no effect.
	how can i suppress the message?  do i have to start over from scratch
	(i.e. newfs)?

itojun


WARNING: possible botched superblock upgrade detected
on filesystem previously mounted on /
fs_bsize == fs_maxbsize (0x00002000) but FS_FLAGS_UPDATED is not set
Test your filesystem by running fsck_ffs -n -f on it.
If it reports:
``VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE''
you should be able to recover with fsck_ffs -b 32 -c 4
See the file src/UPDATING or
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2004/01/11/0022.html
for more details
root file system type: ffs

WARNING: possible botched superblock upgrade detected
on filesystem previously mounted on /usr
fs_bsize == fs_maxbsize (0x00002000) but FS_FLAGS_UPDATED is not set
Test your filesystem by running fsck_ffs -n -f on it.
If it reports:
``VALUES IN SUPER BLOCK DISAGREE WITH THOSE IN FIRST ALTERNATE''
you should be able to recover with fsck_ffs -b 32 -c 4
See the file src/UPDATING or
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2004/01/11/0022.html
for more details