From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id p8RJH7We061571 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:17:07 -0500 Message-ID: <4E822130.70004@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:17:04 -0500 From: Bill Kendall MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfsdump: handle dump files with checksum bug References: <1316781902-19803-1-git-send-email-wkendall@sgi.com> <1316791615.2879.50.camel@doink> In-Reply-To: <1316791615.2879.50.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: aelder@sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On 09/23/2011 10:26 AM, Alex Elder wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 07:45 -0500, Bill Kendall wrote: >> + mlog( MLOG_NORMAL | MLOG_WARNING, _( >> + "extattr header checksum " >> + "could not be verified\n") ); > > Is there any way to slightly change this message so > that someone who saw it would feel like "I got this > warning but it's really OK"? If I were a user and > got this message I would be a little afraid that > it meant something was really wrong with what got > restored--possibly the whole thing, or just on > some unnamed file, never to be found. > > Maybe "old-style extattr header checksums being > ignored". (I'm sure you can come up with better, > I just like to offer *something* when I suggest > a change.) I more or less like what you've suggested. How about this: "ignoring old-style extattr header checksums" Bill _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs