Re: [PATCH] Re: [btrfs-progs integration] incorrect argument checking for "btrfs sub snap -r"

[Stephane Chazelas <stephane.chazelas@gmail.com>]

2011-07-01 11:42:23 +0100, Hugo Mills:
[...]
> > > 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) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "Invalid arguments for subvolume snapshot\n");
 		free(argv);
 		return 1;

Cheers,
Stephane