Hi Ian,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Ian Kumlien <pomac@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch includes fsck as a subcommand of btrfs, but if you rename
> the binary to btrfsck (or, preferably, use a symlink) it will act like
> the old btrfs command.
You can rename files in your git (there's "git mv" for that), only
thing is when you generate the patch with format-patch (or "git show",
"git diff" etc.) pass it the -M option to detect moves and act
appropriately.
Regarding your patches, I really like the idea of "btrfs fsck" but I
think I'd prefer to keep the external commands as wrapper scripts
instead of adding busybox-style name detection to btrfs... But then,
that's just my opinion.
I guess I would have a "btrfsck" that would simply contain:
#! /bin/sh
exec btrfs fsck "$@"
Downside is that error reporting (e.g. invalid syntax, etc.) would
show "btrfs fsck" instead of the command the user actually typed...
Cheers,
Filipe
--
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
