My sincere apologies. It would appear that I was overly careful about checking the binary functioned when called as a symlink, but not the correct filename:
# ls -l `which fsck.btrfs` lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Aug 25 2011 /sbin/fsck.btrfs -> btrfsck So yes, the patch incorrectly assumed a symlink name of 'fsck.btrfsck', instead of 'fsck.btrfs'. As for fsck.xfs, I will take a look, thanks! On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens <jan.steff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dan McGrath <danmcgrath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As per FAQ: It is safe to and recommended to turn fsck.btrfs into a no-op > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan McGrath <danmcgrath...@gmail.com> > > --- > > btrfs.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/btrfs.c b/btrfs.c > > index 691adef..78161a9 100644 > > --- a/btrfs.c > > +++ b/btrfs.c > > @@ -272,6 +272,8 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > > > > if (!strcmp(bname, "btrfsck")) { > > argv[0] = "check"; > > + } else if (!strcmp(bname, "fsck.btrfsck")) { > > + exit(0); > > } else { > > argc--; > > argv++; > > -- > > 1.7.9.5 > > > > -- > > 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 > > Shouldn't it be fsck.btrfs, not fsck.btrfsck? > > Also, fsck.xfs does a bit more than just an exit(0), maybe there's > some merit to what it does. It's a simple shellscript, so check it > out. -- 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