Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!swrinde!gatech!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!torpid.unx.sas.com!sastdr From: sastdr@torpid.unx.sas.com (Thomas David Rivers) Subject: Re: Corrupted directory Sender: news@unx.sas.com (Noter of Newsworthy Events) Message-ID: <Bw8853.BE8@unx.sas.com> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:17:27 GMT References: <Bw4Fv7.M4L@unx.sas.com> <5232.9210151353@thor.cf.ac.uk> <1992Oct16.033843.9805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Nntp-Posting-Host: torpid.unx.sas.com Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Lines: 43 In article <1992Oct16.033843.9805@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >In article <5232.9210151353@thor.cf.ac.uk> spedpr@thor.cf.ac.uk (Paul Richards) writes: >>In article <Bw4Fv7.M4L@unx.sas.com> sastdr@torpid.unx.sas.com (Thomas David Rivers) writes: >>| >>|Regarding this infinite reboot cycle; I recently applied the entire A lot of stuff deleted... (about how I noticed the infinite fsck/reboot problem on two disks at home after I applied the patchkit) >I -think- the offending patch is patch00038, which updates the error >reporting mechanism for bad sector reporting for read errors being reported >to user programs (with this patch in place, trying to install the bin01 >distribution from files located on a bad sector actually fails where you >would want it to, rather than in the decompression some time later). > >Backing out this patch does not require deinstallation of other patches. It >should be noted that the correct fix is to adjust the fsck code (or to return >the expected value to the fsck code) so that the checking is not aborted by >the error. > >Generally, this error will not occur on disks installed with a dist.fs with >the patches applied; instead, it will occur on disks installed on top of >bad sectors (without the error being caught) and to which the patches are >later applied. > >I don't know how the author of the patch (Frank Maclachlan) handles this on >his drives, but I suspect that he does one of the two approaches above. > Well, one of my machines is a SCSI, which should have no bad sectors reported by the controller and the other is an IDE which, according to the INSTALLATION document should have no bad sectors either - although I'm skeptical/confused about that one. So, while patch0038 could be the problem; I don't think it's because fsck is actually running into read errors. Could it be that the mechanism is incorrectly reporting such errors? - Dave Rivers - (rivers@ponds.uucp (home)) (sastdr@unx.sas.com (work)) -- UPDATE ALL INFORMATION AND POD INTO COSMOS - Federal Express