Re: [PATCH 2/6] Btrfs-progs: add btrfsck functionality to btrfs

[Ian Kumlien <pomac@vapor.com>]

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 01:49:21PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:25:55AM +0200, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 7:13 PM, David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> > >> For this to have any effect, 'h' must be added to getopt_long(), see
> > >> attached patch 1.
> > >>
> > >> However, this results in btrfsck -h and --help doing different things:
> > >>
> > >> --help prints the usage message to stdout and exits with exit(0).
> > >> -h prints the usage message to stderr and exits with exit(129).
> > >>
> > >> I made a patch to fix this, see attached patch 2.
> > >> What it doesn't fix though is, that -h/--help and -? don't do the same
> > >> thing. This is more complicated, as getop_long returns '?' for unknown
> > >> options.
> > >
> > > FYI, both patchess added to integration.
> > 
> > FWIW, I think none of the btrfs sub-commands treat -h as a help option.
> > (This is an artifact that was inherited from the the old btrfs-progs
> > utility.)  -h vs --help is actually consistent: -h results in a "btrfs
> > check: invalid option -- 'h'" message, and therefore exits with 129.
> > Since 'btrfs check -h' has clearly never worked we might want to keep
> > the status quo.
> 
> Good point, I'll drop the patches.

This should be really easy to add, i don't know if i have the time
currently thuogh... 

> david