On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Bill Studenmund wrote:

> No, you should include the ufs inode verison number as a parameter in the
> superblock, as does ffs. That way changing the ufs inode doesn't mean
> changing the lfs version. :-)

This isn't really an objection, but I was thinking of lfs_version as
covering all of superblock, segsum, ifile, and inode version.  All of
these things are really orthogonal but since they seldom change they might
as well be lumped together.  It would be easy enough for fsck_lfs to
convert v1->v2->v3 the same way that fsck_ffs can convert between inode
formats.

Besides, if the UFS inode were to change to 64-bit times at some point,
wouldn't FFS itself get a magic number change rather than an fs_inodefmt
bump?  I seem to recall a discussion about big inodes wanting a new magic
number, but I can't remember the reasoning at the moment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Schroder          http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/perseant/
Information Tech & Services   Box 352142 -or- 215 Fluke Hall, Mason Road
Human Interface Technology Lab                  University of Washington
Voice: 206.616.1478   FAX: 206.543.5380          Seattle, WA, 98195, USA