| Message ID | 1411261282-26831-4-git-send-email-xnox@debian.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 21 September 2014 03:01, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote: > > Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are > called to act like fsck. [...] > - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) { > + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) { That's assuming a lot. Silently (!) breaking people's btrfs-3.15_patched-DontRandomlyPanicV2 is a recipe for needless hair-pulling. Is there a reason for not using something less like strstr(bname, "fsck") that I am missing? Regards, T G-R -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 21 September 2014 13:59, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <tobias.geerinckx.rice@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 September 2014 03:01, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote: >> >> Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are >> called to act like fsck. > [...] >> - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) { >> + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) { > > That's assuming a lot. > > Silently (!) breaking people's btrfs-3.15_patched-DontRandomlyPanicV2 > is a recipe for needless hair-pulling. Is there a reason for not using > something less like strstr(bname, "fsck") that I am missing? > Quite. This is verbatim patch as I have currently applied in Debian packaging, and it was a fast fix to prevent breakage we had at one point. Indeed using "strstr(bname, "fsck")" would be better and sufficient to resolve the problem we encountered (specifically fsck.btrfs -> btrfs not acting like btrfs). Also using strstr, would fix btrfsck.my-build to act like fsck tool. I'll update this one patch.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:58:34AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 21 September 2014 13:59, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice > <tobias.geerinckx.rice@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 September 2014 03:01, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> wrote: > >> > >> Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are > >> called to act like fsck. > > [...] > >> - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) { > >> + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) { > > > > That's assuming a lot. > > > > Silently (!) breaking people's btrfs-3.15_patched-DontRandomlyPanicV2 > > is a recipe for needless hair-pulling. Is there a reason for not using > > something less like strstr(bname, "fsck") that I am missing? > > > > Quite. This is verbatim patch as I have currently applied in Debian > packaging, and it was a fast fix to prevent breakage we had at one > point. > > Indeed using "strstr(bname, "fsck")" would be better and sufficient to > resolve the problem we encountered (specifically fsck.btrfs -> btrfs > not acting like btrfs). Also using strstr, would fix btrfsck.my-build > to act like fsck tool. The intention was to provide backward compatibility shortcut for 'btrfsck' -> 'btrfs check' and nothing else. The referenced bug is again for 0.19 but there's an upstream-shipped stub fsck.btrfs (since 3.14) that should avoid any packaging tricks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c index e83349c..e8a87ac 100644 --- a/btrfs.c +++ b/btrfs.c @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) else bname = argv[0]; - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) { + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) { argv[0] = "check"; } else { argc--;
Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are called to act like fsck. Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/712078 Signed-off-by: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> --- btrfs.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)