On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 03:47:03PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:33:45PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > +static void reserve_block_for_lnf_repair(e2fsck_t ctx)
> > +{
> > + blk64_t blk = 0;
> > + errcode_t err;
> > + ext2_filsys fs = ctx->fs;
> > + const char *name = "lost+found";
> > + ext2_ino_t ino;
> > +
> > + ctx->lnf_repair_block = 0;
> > + if (!ext2fs_lookup(fs, EXT2_ROOT_INO, name, sizeof(name)-1, 0, &ino))
> > + return;
>
> Let me guess... this originally read:
>
> const char name[] = "lost+found";
>
> But you changed it without rerunning the regression tests. :-(
Oops.
Actually, I /did/ rerun the regression tests, and nothing blew up. Now I'm
puzzling over why it worked. I'll look into that tomorrow.
Thanks for catching that.
--D
>
> Another reason why there is no such thing as not running the
> regression tests too many times, even after the most trivial changes.
>
> I'll fix this up and commit it, with the following comment added:
>
> [ Fixed up an obvious C trap: const char * and const char [] are not
> the same thing when you are taking the size of the parameter.
> People, run your regression tests! Like spinache, it's good for you. :-)
> -- tytso ]
>
> - Ted
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
