Ethan Quach wrote: > Evan, > > Why not just move lines 272-274 to 301, instead of adding 266-271 ?
We need to check for a valid name before calling getActiveBEAndActiveOnBootBE(be.trgtBeNameOrSnapshot[0]) don't we? If I moved lines 272-274 down to 301 we're could be calling into getActiveBEAndActiveOnBootBE with an invalid name in be.trgtBeNameOrSnapshot[0]. -evan > > > -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
