From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tartarus.angband.pl ([89.206.35.136]:35483 "EHLO tartarus.angband.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751610AbcH1UTM (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Aug 2016 16:19:12 -0400 Received: from kilobyte by tartarus.angband.pl with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1be6Xs-0005Zh-Nj for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:19:08 +0200 Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:19:08 +0200 From: Adam Borowski To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: does btrfs-receive use/compare the checksums from the btrfs-send side? Message-ID: <20160828201908.GA19993@angband.pl> References: <1472355960.16760.9.camel@scientia.net> <1472406642.7253.1.camel@scientia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1472406642.7253.1.camel@scientia.net> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 07:50:42PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > On Sun, 2016-08-28 at 11:35 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > I don't see evidence of them in the btrfs send file, so I don't think > > csums are in the stream. > > hmm... isn't that kinda unfortunate not to make use of the information > that's already there? Transports over which you're likely to send a filesystem stream already protect against corruption. It'd still be nice to have something for those which don't, of course. -- An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.