On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:55:40AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote: > 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 think we really want this option before cutting a new release. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
