On 01/24/2013 12:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 1/23/13 2:12 AM, Anand Jain wrote:
We need a function which can get the root_info of a given
subvol. This is in preparation to add support for the show
sub-cli.
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <[email protected]>
---
btrfs-list.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
btrfs-list.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 39 insertions(+)
diff --git a/btrfs-list.c b/btrfs-list.c
index 1851f3e..ec64a36 100644
--- a/btrfs-list.c
+++ b/btrfs-list.c
@@ -1455,6 +1455,44 @@ int btrfs_list_subvols_print(int fd, struct
btrfs_list_filter_set *filter_set,
return 0;
}
+int btrfs_get_subvol(int fd, struct root_info *the_ri)
+{
+ int ret = -1;
+ struct root_lookup rl;
+ struct rb_node *rbn;
+ struct root_info *ri;
+ u64 root_id = btrfs_list_get_path_rootid(fd);
+
+ if (btrfs_list_subvols(fd, &rl))
+ return 13;
Unless there is an ongoing plan to actually do something with these
magical returns, can we maybe just be normal about error return values
in new code?
The caller you add only cares about 0 or not, right? Or is there some other
purpose for "13" I'm not aware of?
Thanks,
-Eric
It was as in the original return value. But I think
its time we fix this. now. accepted.
Thanks, Anand
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
