Thanks,
Andreas Philipp
 
[PATCH] check number of args for btrfs sub snap correctly
 
Check whether there are the right number of arguments (exatly 2 without
the flag -r) in the subcommand handler for the btrfs subvolume snapshot
command.
 
Signed-off-by: Andreas Philipp <redacted>
- ---
 btrfs_cmds.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
 

diff --git a/btrfs_cmds.c b/btrfs_cmds.c
index da5bd91..42c82f8 100644
- --- a/btrfs_cmds.c
+++ b/btrfs_cmds.c

@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ int do_clone(int argc, char **argv)
             return 1;
         }
     }
- -    if (argc - optind < 2) {
+    if (argc - optind != 3) {
         fprintf(stderr, "Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot\n");
         free(argv);
         return 1;
 
- --   

1.7.3.4
 
 
 
On 11.08.2011 06:30, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:     

quoted

Hi, Hugo,

I built your for-chris branch, and ran 'btrfs sub snap' command.
Then, I encountered following error message.

# btrfs sub snap Dir-1 Dir-2
Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot

commit:8b4c2a22bff85f86af44587973c8da8c29a67ffc is wrong, I think.

(2011/07/01 21:55), Stephane Chazelas wrote:

quoted

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) {
+ if (argc - optind != 2) {

I think that '3' is correct.

Thanks,
Tsutomu

quoted

fprintf(stderr, "Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot\n");
free(argv);
return 1;

Cheers,
Stephane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 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=oQbK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----