Evan, Why not just move lines 272-274 to 301, instead of adding 266-271 ?
-ethan Evan Layton wrote: > Hi, > > I need to get a review the following simple fix. > > Some background: This bug was introduced with the fix for 5749. In the > case of beadm destroy we validate the name of the BE however if we're > destroying a snapshot of a BE we were not splitting out the name of the > BE from the snapshot name before doing the name validation. I checked > through the rest of beadm and didn't find any other areas where we deal > with both BE names and snapshots that we were not checking for a snapshot > before validating the BE name. > > 7071 beadm can fail to destroy snapshot > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=7071 > > Webrev: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/7071/ > > Thanks! > -evan > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
