On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 09:58:34AM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> On 21 September 2014 13:59, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
> <tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 21 September 2014 03:01, Dimitri John Ledkov <x...@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Inspect arguments, if we are not called as btrfs, then assume we are
> >> called to act like fsck.
> > [...]
> >> - if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) {
> >> + if (strcmp(bname, "btrfs") != 0) {
> >
> > That's assuming a lot.
> >
> > Silently (!) breaking people's btrfs-3.15_patched-DontRandomlyPanicV2
> > is a recipe for needless hair-pulling. Is there a reason for not using
> > something less like strstr(bname, "fsck") that I am missing?
> >
>
> Quite. This is verbatim patch as I have currently applied in Debian
> packaging, and it was a fast fix to prevent breakage we had at one
> point.
>
> Indeed using "strstr(bname, "fsck")" would be better and sufficient to
> resolve the problem we encountered (specifically fsck.btrfs -> btrfs
> not acting like btrfs). Also using strstr, would fix btrfsck.my-build
> to act like fsck tool.
The intention was to provide backward compatibility shortcut for
'btrfsck' -> 'btrfs check' and nothing else. The referenced bug is again
for 0.19 but there's an upstream-shipped stub fsck.btrfs (since 3.14)
that should avoid any packaging tricks.
--
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
