From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Darrick J. Wong" Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error message Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:08:29 -0700 Message-ID: <20140505230829.GK8434@birch.djwong.org> References: <20140501231222.31890.82860.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20140501231334.31890.49878.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: =?utf-8?B?THVrw6HFoQ==?= Czerner Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:28860 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756961AbaEEXIf (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2014 19:08:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Luk=C3=A1=C5=A1 Czerner wrote= : > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >=20 > > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700 > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > To: tytso@mit.edu, darrick.wong@oracle.com > > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum = error > > message > >=20 > > Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less > > strange. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong > > --- > > e2fsck/problem.c | 12 +++++------- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > >=20 > >=20 > > diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c > > index 0999399..ec20bd1 100644 > > --- a/e2fsck/problem.c > > +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c > > @@ -992,19 +992,17 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = =3D { > > "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"), > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > =20 > > - /* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */ > > + /* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */ >=20 > The "for inode" is still there in the message, so I do not think > there is a reason to remove it from the comment. Oops. > > { PR_1_EA_BLOCK_CSUM_INVALID, > > - N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not " > > - "match. "), > > + N_("@a @b %b checksum for @i %i does not match. "), > > PROMPT_CLEAR, PR_INITIAL_CSUM }, > > =20 > > /* > > - * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum for inode= does > > - * not match. > > + * Extended attribute block passes checks, but checksum does not > > + * match. > > */ > > { PR_1_EA_BLOCK_ONLY_CSUM_INVALID, > > - N_("Extended attribute @a @b %b passes checks, but checksum for= " > > - "@i %i does not match. "), > > + N_("@a @b %b passes checks, but checksum does not match. "), >=20 > Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ? =46or whatever reason, I was confused by this message and thought it wa= s referring to a checksum failure in the inode itself. On the other hand= , it's helpful to map an EA block back to an inode, so perhaps the message sho= uld be changed to: "Inode XXX's extended attribute block YYY passes checks, but checksum d= oes not match." Now that I look at the other metadata_csum checks, the failure message = starts with "@i %i..." so these two might as well follow the convention. Sorr= y that I seem to have strayed from it. --D >=20 > Thanks! > -Lukas >=20 > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > =20 > > /* > >=20 > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext= 4" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >=20 > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4"= in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html