May be a bug in fsck [ after super block crash on 5.4-STABLE ]

[Taras Savchuk]

On 11/3/05, Xin LI <delphij at gmail.com> wrote:
  On 11/3/05, Taras Savchuk <taras.savchuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> My SATA HDD with UFS2 crashed. While checking HDD fsck said, that alternate
> super block at block 32 is not present. In 'man fsck' I saw, that in UFS2  
> (my file system) alternate super block is usually located in block 160 (For
> UFS1 - in 32). So the question is: why fsck trying to find alternate
> superblock in wrong block for UFS2? I can suppose, that fsck dont know file  
> system type (UFS1 or UFS2) while checking, but such assumption seems to be
> wrong.
>
> fsck with '-b 160' optione works well.

I think this is a bug.  You may want to dig into fsck_ffs/setup.c to  
find out how to solve this...

I'll try, but I'm not a big kernel-hacker. Thank you for answer.