Re: [issue1586] HAMMER: you can mount_hammer a UFS that was a hammer fs before

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
*snip*

> Bill, what on earth are you talking about?  It is entirely clear what is 
> happening.  That's why it is also clear that this is a problem.  Why 
> should Jan look at his logs?  *We know what is happening!*

Mounting and unmounting a block device with one fs does not necessarily leave a 
tell-tale that some other fs even *looks* for.

Is mount_ufs even hammer_fs aware on DFLY, let alone an(y) other *BSD?

Can mount_hammerfs distinguish between a UFS and hammer layout?

And if not, why on Earth would either fs NOT see the device as what it was told 
to *expect*?

. .and does NOTHING throw even a remark into one log or another?

Sounds to me like the same fs type-code is in use, no?

And what about registering hammer fs GPT / GUID/ codes?

Until both of those are hammer fs specific, even if on-disk info and/or DFLY 
mount_<whatever> is recoded to determine the difference, any OTHER fs is likely 
to remain oblivious.

That is what 'on Earth' I am on about...

Bill