| Message ID | 20140501231334.31890.49878.stgit@birch.djwong.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700 > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > 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 > > Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less > strange. > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > --- > e2fsck/problem.c | 12 +++++------- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > 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[] = { > "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"), > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > - /* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */ > + /* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */ The "for inode" is still there in the message, so I do not think there is a reason to remove it from the comment. > { 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 }, > > /* > - * 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. "), Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ? Thanks! -Lukas > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > /* > > -- > 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" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700 > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > 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 > > > > Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less > > strange. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > --- > > e2fsck/problem.c | 12 +++++------- > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > 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[] = { > > "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"), > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > > > - /* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */ > > + /* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */ > > 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 }, > > > > /* > > - * 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. "), > > Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ? For whatever reason, I was confused by this message and thought it was 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 should be changed to: "Inode XXX's extended attribute block YYY passes checks, but checksum does 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. Sorry that I seem to have strayed from it. --D > > Thanks! > -Lukas > > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > > > /* > > > > -- > > 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" 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" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, 5 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:08:29 -0700 > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> > Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error > message > > On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700 > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > > 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 > > > > > > Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less > > > strange. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> > > > --- > > > e2fsck/problem.c | 12 +++++------- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > 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[] = { > > > "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"), > > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > > > > > - /* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */ > > > + /* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */ > > > > 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 }, > > > > > > /* > > > - * 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. "), > > > > Is there a reason to remove the inode number from the message ? > > For whatever reason, I was confused by this message and thought it was > 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 should be > changed to: > > "Inode XXX's extended attribute block YYY passes checks, but checksum does not > match." That sounds better, thanks! -Lukas > > 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. Sorry that I > seem to have strayed from it. > > --D > > > > Thanks! > > -Lukas > > > > > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > > > > > /* > > > > > > -- > > > 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" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
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[] = { "extent\n\t(logical @b %c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"), PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, - /* Extended attribute block checksum for inode does not match. */ + /* Extended attribute block checksum does not match. */ { 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 }, /* - * 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. "), PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, /*
Make the "EA block passes checks but fails checksum" message less strange. Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com> --- e2fsck/problem.c | 12 +++++------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) -- 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