On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 12:13:30PM +0200, Andreas Philipp wrote:
> On 01.07.2011 10:26, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> > 2011-06-30 22:55:15 +0200, Andreas Philipp:
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 30.06.2011 14:34, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> >>> Looks like this was missing in integration-20110626 for the
> >>> readonly snapshot patch:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
> >>> index e117172..be6ece5 100644
> >>> --- a/btrfs.c
> >>> +++ b/btrfs.c
> >>> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static struct Command commands[] = {
> >>> /*
> >>> avoid short commands different for the case only
> >>> */
> >>> - { do_clone, 2,
> >>> + { do_clone, -1,
> >>> "subvolume snapshot", "[-r] <source> [<dest>/]<name>\n"
> >>> "Create a writable/readonly snapshot of the subvolume <source> with\n"
> >>> "the name <name> in the <dest> directory.",
> >>>
> >>> Without that, "btrfs sub snap -r x y" would fail as it's not *2*
> >>> arguments.
> >> Unfortunately, this is not correct either. "-1" means that the minimum
> >> number of arguments is 1 and since we need at least <source> and
> >> <name> this is 2. So the correct version should be -2.
> > [...]
> >
> > Sorry, without looking closely at the source, I assumed -1 meant
> > defer the checking to the subcommand handler.
> >
> > do_clone will indeed return an error if the number of arguments
> > is less than expected (so with -2, you'll get a different error
> > message if you do "btrfs sub snap -r foo" or "btrfs sub snap
> > foo") , but will not if it's more than expected by the way.
> >
> > So the patch should probably be:
> >
> > diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
> > index e117172..b50c58a 100644
> > --- a/btrfs.c
> > +++ b/btrfs.c
> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static struct Command commands[] = {
> > /*
> > avoid short commands different for the case only
> > */
> > - { do_clone, 2,
> > + { do_clone, -2,
> > "subvolume snapshot", "[-r] <source> [<dest>/]<name>\n"
> > "Create a writable/readonly snapshot of the subvolume <source> with\n"
> > "the name <name> in the <dest> directory.",
> > diff --git a/btrfs_cmds.c b/btrfs_cmds.c
> > index 1d18c59..3415afc 100644
> > --- a/btrfs_cmds.c
> > +++ b/btrfs_cmds.c
> > @@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ int do_clone(int argc, char **argv)
> > return 1;
> > }
> > }
> > - if (argc - optind < 2) {
> > + if (argc - optind != 2) {
> > fprintf(stderr, "Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot\n");
> > free(argv);
> > return 1;
> >
> Thanks for having another look at this. You are perfectly right. Should
> we patch my patch or should I rework a corrected version? What do you
> think Hugo?
Could you send a follow-up patch with just the second hunk, please?
I screwed up the process with this (processing patches too quickly to
catch the review), and I've already published the patch with the first
hunk, above, into the for-chris branch.
Hugo.
--
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
--- It's not so much an afterlife, more a sort of après vie. ---
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
