From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH] howto: document more tools for recovery corruption Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:49:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20150402004955.GA25634@peff.net> References: <20131016083400.GA31266@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20150401210856.GA23050@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Apr 02 02:50:04 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YdTKd-0005Fd-PL for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 02:50:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751863AbbDBAt7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:49:59 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:41161 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751056AbbDBAt6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:49:58 -0400 Received: (qmail 4751 invoked by uid 102); 2 Apr 2015 00:49:58 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:49:58 -0500 Received: (qmail 6120 invoked by uid 107); 2 Apr 2015 00:50:15 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:50:15 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 01 Apr 2015 20:49:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:21:16PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > Long ago, I documented a corruption recovery I did and gave > > some C code that I used to help find a flipped bit. I had > > to fix a similar case recently, and I ended up writing a few > > more tools. I hope nobody ever has to use these, but it > > does not hurt to share them, just in case. > > I am having a hard time deciding if I should take the Date: header > of the patch e-mail into consideration. The munge thing looks > serious enough, though. Heh, no, this is sadly a serious thing that I did today (but I was able to detect and correct a single flipped bit in a 60MB packfile, which is kind of neat, I guess). I hesitated sending them at all because they are not really note-worthy. OTOH, during today's exercise I found the instructions and sample program I had written last time to be very useful, so perhaps it can help somebody (or even me) at some later today. -Peff