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