On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 11:11:31PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08 2019, "Theo de Raadt" <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> > Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 09:35:35PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > 
> >> > I think it's fair to give the user a chance to understand why
> >> > scan_ffs(8) won't help in this case.
> >> > 
> >> > ok?
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> hi.
> >> 
> >> i'm not sure if it's a bug, but it sure seems relevant. i would be
> >> tempted to be much more upfront about this (DESCRIPTION), way before you
> >> start tearing hair out...
> >> 
> >> like just say upfront, scan_ffs does not support ffs2 filesystems.
> >
> > true.  it should be stated in a formal way.
> 
> Looks like a better approach indeed.
> 
> > "It is not perfect"
> >
> > Yuck...
> >
> > "one butt"?
> >
> > This is below our standard.
> 
> yep
> 
> So here's a three parts diff
> 1. kill useless .TH line present since rev. 1.1

yep

> 2. document the lack of FFS2 support in DESCRIPTION

yep, though i'd skip the "note that" blurb.

why not

        .Pp
        .Nm
        works only on FFS file systems,
        not FFS2 file systems.

> 3. remove BUGS
> 

i'm less sure here. i'd leave it to the author's discretion, but if it
really is useless (i can't judge), fair enough.

jmc

> Rationale for 3: after trimming the fluff from BUGS, you end up with:
> 
>   .Nm
>   could do a lot more things with date/time information in the
>   superblocks it finds.
> 
> The FFS superblock contains three "time" fields:
> - fs_ffs1_time "last time written"
> - fs_time "last time written"
> - fs_fscktime "last time fsck(8)ed"
> 
> Printing fs_fscktime doesn't look useful to me.  fs_ffs1_time and
> fs_time are supposed to contain the same value, if I read ffs_vfsops.c
> correctly.  The difference is that fs_ffs1_time is an int32_t and
> fs_time is an int64_t.  While this may need care regarding Y2038,
> this is a problem with FFS, not scan_ffs(8).
> 
> Thoughts/oks?
> 
> 
> --- scan_ffs.8.~1.16.~        Fri Feb  8 21:56:34 2019
> +++ scan_ffs.8        Fri Feb  8 23:08:00 2019
> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>  .\" (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>  .\" THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>  .\"
> -.\" .TH scan_ffs 8
>  .Dd $Mdocdate: March 23 2008 $
>  .Dt SCAN_FFS 8
>  .Os
> @@ -48,6 +47,10 @@ on the disk.
>  It has various options to make it go faster, and to print out
>  information to help in the reconstruction of the disklabel.
>  .Pp
> +Note that
> +.Nm
> +does not recognize FFS2 partitions.
> +.Pp
>  The options are as follows:
>  .Bl -tag -width Ds
>  .It Fl b Ar begin
> @@ -135,7 +138,3 @@ If you can't have backups, at least have funky tools t
>  you out of a jam when they happen.
>  .Sh SEE ALSO
>  .Xr disklabel 8
> -.Sh BUGS
> -It is not perfect, and could do a lot more things with date/time information
> -in the superblocks it finds, but this program has saved more than one butt,
> -more than once.
> 
> -- 
> jca | PGP : 0x1524E7EE / 5135 92C1 AD36 5293 2BDF  DDCC 0DFA 74AE 1524 E7EE
> 

Reply via email to