On 10/09/2007, Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Acked-by: Duane Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cheers, Duane. -- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
