On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:29:56 +0200
Juan RP <juan@xtrarom.org> wrote:

> $ sudo vnconfig vnd0 foo.img
> $ sudo disklabel -iI vnd0
> partition> P
> 4 partitions:
> #        size    offset     fstype [fsize bsize cpg/sgs]
> a:   1048576         0     4.2BSD      0     0     0  # (Cyl.      0 -
> 511) d:   1048576         0     unused      0     0        # (Cyl.      0
> - 511)
> partition> W
> Label disk [n]? y
> Label written
> partition> Q
> $ sudo newfs /dev/rvnd0a
> 
> /dev/rvnd0a: 512.0MB (1048576 sectors) block size 8192, fragment size 1024
> using 12 cylinder groups of 42.67MB, 5462 blks, 10624 inodes. super-block
> backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at: 32, 87424, 174816, 262208, 349600, 436992,
> 524384, 611776, 699168, 786560, 873952, 961344,
> 
> $ scan_ffs -l vnd0
> Disk: vnd
> Total sectors on disk: 1048576
> 
> #        size    offset fstype [fsize bsize cpg/sgs]
> X:    1048576         0 4.2BSD   1024  8192       1 #  [FFSv1]
> ^C
> $ dumpfs -s vnd0a|grep -i
> ffs cylgrp  dynamic inodes  4.4BSD  sblock  FFSv2   fslevel 4
> $
> 
> dumpfs(8) should say "4.4BSD and sblock FFS".

This is what dumpfs(8) reports with a FFSv2 partition:

$ dumpfs -s vnd0a|grep -i ffs                
cylgrp  dynamic inodes  FFSv2   sblock  FFSv2   fslevel 5
$

- fslevel 5 vs fslevel 4
- dynamic inodes FFSv2 vs 4.4BSD

Both are correct, but perhaps dumpfs(8) should change "sblock FFSv2"
to "sblock FFS" to not confuse people.

-- 
Juan Romero Pardines	- The NetBSD Project
http://plog.xtrarom.org	- NetBSD/pkgsrc news in Spanish