[pbs-devel] [PATCH backup] verify: print number of chunks failing verification

[Maximiliano Sandoval]

Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler at proxmox.com> writes:

> On April 14, 2025 10:28 am, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote:
>> We also re-use the error_count variable defined right above.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval <m.sandoval at proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>  src/backup/verify.rs | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/src/backup/verify.rs b/src/backup/verify.rs
>> index 3d2cba8ac..1344b3b22 100644
>> --- a/src/backup/verify.rs
>> +++ b/src/backup/verify.rs
>> @@ -231,8 +231,8 @@ fn verify_index_chunks(
>>          "  verified {read_bytes_mib:.2}/{decoded_bytes_mib:.2} MiB in {elapsed:.2} seconds, speed {read_speed:.2}/{decode_speed:.2} MiB/s ({error_count} errors)"
>>      );
>>  
>> -    if errors.load(Ordering::SeqCst) > 0 {
>> -        bail!("chunks could not be verified");
>> +    if error_count > 0 {
>> +        bail!("{error_count} chunks could not be verified");
>
> but the error count is already included in the log message right before
> it?

You are right, would it make more sense to print it here? The "number of
errors" is a bit unclear and that line is already a bit too long.

It is not clear that "errors" in this context means how many chunks were
not verified.

> if we do this, then the message before it should be changed to just
> indicate success/failure, logging the error count twice doesn't make
> much sense..
>
>>      }
>>  
>>      Ok(())
>> -- 
>> 2.39.5
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> pbs-devel mailing list
>> pbs-devel at lists.proxmox.com
>> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pbs-devel mailing list
> pbs-devel at lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel