2011-07-01 11:42:23 +0100, Hugo Mills:
[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c
index e117172..b50c58a 100644
--- a/btrfs.c
+++ b/btrfs.c

@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static struct Command commands[] = {
 	/*
 		avoid short commands different for the case only
 	*/
-	{ do_clone, 2,
+	{ do_clone, -2,
 	  "subvolume snapshot", "[-r] <source> [<dest>/]<name>\n"
 		"Create a writable/readonly snapshot of the subvolume <source> with\n"
 		"the name <name> in the <dest> directory.",

diff --git a/btrfs_cmds.c b/btrfs_cmds.c
index 1d18c59..3415afc 100644
--- a/btrfs_cmds.c
+++ b/btrfs_cmds.c

@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ int do_clone(int argc, char **argv)
 			return 1;
 		}
 	}
-	if (argc - optind < 2) {
+	if (argc - optind != 2) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot\n");
 		free(argv);
 		return 1;

Thanks for having another look at this. You are perfectly right. Should
we patch my patch or should I rework a corrected version? What do you
think Hugo?

   Could you send a follow-up patch with just the second hunk, please?
I screwed up the process with this (processing patches too quickly to
catch the review), and I've already published the patch with the first
hunk, above, into the for-chris branch.

Hugo, not sure what you mean nor whom you're talking to, but I
can certainly copy-paste the second hunk from above here:

diff --git a/btrfs_cmds.c b/btrfs_cmds.c
index 1d18c59..3415afc 100644
--- a/btrfs_cmds.c
+++ b/btrfs_cmds.c

@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ int do_clone(int argc, char **argv)
 			return 1;
 		}
 	}
-	if (argc - optind < 2) {