On Mon, 5 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 16:08:29 -0700
> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: tytso@xxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: tytso@xxxxxxx, darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > 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@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
>
