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 <dste...@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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
