On Mon, 2011-09-19 at 19:18 -0500, Bill Kendall wrote: > On 09/19/2011 03:12 PM, Alex Elder wrote: . . . > > The theory in doing this unconditionally is that we might as > > well record it, even if the restore program chooses to ignore > > it, right? > > Right. (You probably noticed this also changes restore to > unconditionally verify the checksum, provided the flags > indicate the checksum was recorded.) It *might* be nice to have an option to ignore the checksum on restore. I don't know though. I was thinking it might be useful if whatever dumped the data did a buggy checksum but, well, we have no evidence that xfsdump has ever done that. . . . > > I know it's fairly obvious on these simple functions, but it > > might be nice to state in the header that the number of bytes > > used in the checksum is a multiple of 4, and that endp marks > > a point *beyond* the last byte used. > > I've changed this to be more conventional and take a length > argument rather than an end pointer. Also added a comment > about the length restriction. I was going to suggest using length, so that sounds good to me. -Alex _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
