Hi Anand,
On 05/16/2014 12:32 PM, Anand Jain wrote:
David,
As mentioned, this patch will back-out the earlier patch
50275bacab0f62b91453fbfa29e75c2bb77bf9b6
I am confused on what I am missing ? Any comment?
You are right, i guess dave just missed your previous thread.:-)
dave, please ignore my patch, sorry for noise.
Thanks,
Wang
Thanks, Anand
On 16/05/14 01:06, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 05:05:05PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
Btrfs device id start from 1, not 0.
--- a/utils.c
+++ b/utils.c
@@ -1765,7 +1765,7 @@ int get_fs_info(char *path, struct
btrfs_ioctl_fs_info_args *fi_args,
goto out;
}
- for (; i <= fi_args->max_id; ++i) {
+ for (i = 1; i <= fi_args->max_id; ++i) {
You're right about the device id start, but forcing 1 here breaks the
case when get_fs_info is called with block device as an argument and 'i'
is set to the devid a few lines above.
Initializing i to 1 in the declaration block is the right fix IMO, and
as this is a trivial change I'll do that myself, no need to resend.
BUG_ON(ndevs >= fi_args->num_devices);
ret = get_device_info(fd, i, &di_args[ndevs]);
if (ret == -ENODEV)
--
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
.
--
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
