From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Luk=E1=A8_Czerner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/37] e2fsck: fix the extended attribute checksum error message Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 14:46:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <20140501231222.31890.82860.stgit@birch.djwong.org> <20140501231334.31890.49878.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: "Darrick J. Wong" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16655 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751387AbaEBMrD (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 08:47:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20140501231334.31890.49878.stgit@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 1 May 2014, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 16:13:34 -0700 > From: Darrick J. Wong > To: tytso@mit.edu, darrick.wong@oracle.com > Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org > 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 > --- > 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. > { 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 ? Thanks! -Lukas > PROMPT_FIX, 0 }, > > /* > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >