On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 07:50:07AM +0100, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-12-14, at 2:15, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > When we encounter an extent tree block that passes the header check but fails
> > the checksum, offer to clear just that extent block instead of failing the
> > whole tree, which results in the entire inode being wiped out.
> >
> > diff --git a/e2fsck/problem.c b/e2fsck/problem.c
> > index e74ad79..96b0de5 100644
> > --- a/e2fsck/problem.c
> > +++ b/e2fsck/problem.c
> > @@ -946,6 +946,12 @@ static struct e2fsck_problem problem_table[] = {
> > N_("The bad @b @i looks @n. "),
> > PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
> >
> > + /* Extent block does not match extent */
> > + { PR_1_EXTENT_CSUM_INVALID,
> > + N_("@i %i extent block checksum does not match extent\n\t(logical @b "
> > + "%c, @n physical @b %b, len %N)\n"),
> > + PROMPT_CLEAR, 0 },
>
> Since the comment above the problem definition is the only place that the
> full string can be found, it should match the printed string exactly. In this
> case it is missing "inode" at the start and "checksum" in the middle of the
> comment.
Ok.
--D
>
> Cheers, Andreas--
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
