Thanks!
So now:
A_PATH -> path -> full_path -> newpath
A_PATH_LINK -> lnk -> full_link_path -> oldpath
while I viewed it the other way around.
I guess it's not important what is left/right, old/new :) as long as
it's consistent.
Alex.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Alexander Block
<ablock84@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Alex Lyakas
> <alex.bolshoy.btrfs@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> +static int process_link(const char *path, const char *lnk, void *user)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + struct btrfs_receive *r = user;
>> + char *full_path = path_cat(r->full_subvol_path, path);
>> +
>> + if (g_verbose >= 1)
>> + fprintf(stderr, "link %s -> %s\n", path, lnk);
>> +
>> + ret = link(lnk, full_path);
>> + if (ret < 0) {
>> + ret = -errno;
>> + fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: link %s -> %s failed. %s\n", path,
>> + lnk, strerror(-ret));
>> + }
>>
>> Actually it has to be:
>> char *full_link_path = path_cat(r->full_subvol_path, lnk);
>> ...
>> ret = link(full_path/*oldpath*/, full_link_path/*newpath*/);
>> ...
>> free(full_link_path);
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex.
>
> Actually, the pathes got mixed up in-kernel. You'll find a pushed fix
> in the kernel repo. I also pushed a fix to btrfs-progs containing the
> full_link_path. Thanks again :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
