From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762009AbXIKBfX (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:35:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758558AbXIKBfK (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:35:10 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.184]:19698 "EHLO rv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756628AbXIKBfG (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:35:06 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=LRZ5GCuwN6lbZPXOAZV4b57d2Gxs6qL9fpCFCqX9lQgP5+OSC9vFRvmKj2Nm90gGdnH5QR5SGc+SeNb4Jw4QTQ3sEIGMLVGZ+8HYqve53eyyTVCSTfqIR4RP2zcjkwWlDud34gOJ93vxdenHdPKb/2kb9dZ+hrF9zQJkd9Ayx2w= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:35:04 +0100 From: "Duane Griffin" To: "Eric Sandeen" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] dir_index: error out instead of BUG on corrupt dx dirs Cc: "linux-kernel Mailing List" , "Andrew Morton" , "ext4 development" In-Reply-To: <46E5C82C.907@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46D8D30B.6090703@redhat.com> <20070909131933.GA15229@dastardly.plus.com> <46E55BD0.30500@redhat.com> <46E5C82C.907@redhat.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5f94f1658cc6d04b Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 10/09/2007, Eric Sandeen wrote: > I don't know if it's worth differentiating messages for different types > of corruption (root block vs. others, etc...) - I guess the other error > cases do. Might be useful for a developer wanting to know exactly which error check was triggering. Unlikely to be of much interest or use to the user, so I wouldn't worry too much about the exact wording. > Here's a patch rolling up yours with mine + discussed changes, and > consolidating the fsck suggestion message. > > How's it look to you? Suppose I'd better run this a bit to be sure it's > not hitting any common cases and issuing new warnings...? The warnings shouldn't include explicit newlines, aside from that it looks good to me. I've tested it with the corruption utility and all combinations (count & limit, root & indirect) seem to work correctly. > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen Acked-by: Duane Griffin Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan