> >For instance, it's unclear to me why fsck would claim the symlinks
> >were two blocks long; that's a pretty long symlink!
> 
> Because it`s an 8k/1k filesystem, and the filesystem cannot allocate
> less than a fragment??

"there's a reason why i'm going to sleep in about 3 minutes..."

> >If you fsck with that patch in, and a problem is corrected,
> >and the superblock is written out, the wrong data (i.e. 0, rather than
> > -1) will be written out for the fs_maxsymlinklen field.
> 
> Yes, but I thought NetBSD wasn't ever meant to mount 4.2 filesystems
> read-write, so this shouldn't be a problem.

the problem is not with mounting the FS read-write.  if fsck
makes this modification to the superblock, and the modification
gets written out, then a future _fsck_ might fail...


i'm not really sure what the right solution to the problem
is, but i don't believe it's the one your proposed...  i definitely
don't think i'm capable of thinking about it right now, though.



chris


------------------------------------------------------------------------------