Evan Layton wrote: > Tim Knitter wrote: >> Evan, >> >> 941 "Failed to find active zone >> root " >> >> Since it isn't a failure to not find the active zone root shouldn't >> the message just state "Couldn't find active zone root"? > > Good point. How about "Zone does not have an active root dataset, > skipping this zone."
Fine. Tim > >> >> Other than that it looks fine. >> Tim >> >> Evan Layton wrote: >>> I need a code review for 3776. >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3776 >>> >>> The problem was very much like 3772 in that when we found that a zone >>> didn't have an active zone root dataset we would set the error value >>> returned from find_active_zone_root() and if it wasn't 0 we would >>> continue back to the top of the for loop. However the error value was >>> never cleared so if this was that last zone to be processed we would >>> erroneously return the error for the previous find_active_zone_root() >>> call. What should have been happening is if there was no active root >>> dataset for the zone then we skip it and try the next zone without >>> setting the error value returned from find_active_zone_root. >>> >>> To fix this I moved the call to find_active_zone_root into it's own >>> if clause and removed the code that set it's return value. >>> >>> The following webrev includes the fix for this bug as well as the >>> changes made to address general code review comments. The actual >>> change to fix 3776 is on lines 938 through 944 of be_activate.c. >>> >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/webrev.3776/ >>> >>> Thanks! >>> -evan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
