On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 01:35:28AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> mkfs.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs.c b/mkfs.c
> index 60f906c..66f558a 100644
> --- a/mkfs.c
> +++ b/mkfs.c
> @@ -1570,6 +1570,8 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> * occur by the following processing.
> * (btrfs_register_one_device() fails if O_EXCL is on)
> */
> + if (fd > 0)
> + close(fd);
> fd = open(file, O_RDWR);
> if (fd < 0) {
> fprintf(stderr, "unable to open %s: %s\n", file,
> @@ -1581,7 +1583,6 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> if (ret) {
> fprintf(stderr, "skipping duplicate device %s in FS\n",
> file);
> - close(fd);
> continue;
> }
> ret = btrfs_prepare_device(fd, file, zero_end, &dev_block_count,
This breaks mkfs with multiple disks. Please for the love of all that is holy
just do a xfstests run with your patches to make sure they don't break anything
so when I go to try to test something completely different I don't have to waste
time bisecting down to figure out wtf you broke today? David can you kick this
one out of integration for the time being please? Thanks,
Josef
--
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
