From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8MGhosk244390 for ; Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:43:51 -0500 Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:43:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: enable dump header checksums Message-ID: <20110922164347.GA8686@infradead.org> References: <1314654106-28548-1-git-send-email-wkendall@sgi.com> <1316463141.2941.75.camel@doink> <4E77DBB9.7060400@sgi.com> <1316537740.2912.25.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1316537740.2912.25.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com 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@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs