AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070410162139.13fc1c56@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<larry.scheer@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0221571B@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:22:05 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: please review
Message-ID: <20070410162205.783f4fcc@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0221571B@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <20070410134047.364be2b3@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0221571B@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 16:13:18 -0700 "Larry Scheer"
<larry.scheer@onstor.com> wrote:

> On line 1128 and 1232 you are calling =EF=BB=BFu_mount_secondary() with
> verbose hard coded to 1. Shouldn't this be a macro value defined by a
> debug flag? Was your intention to always have verbose on? Maybe it
> should only be on for a debug build? But then again in production if
> a mount failed it would do so silently.

All the preexisting uses of u_mount_secondary, except the one for
"system version -s" were hardcoded to verbose, because that's they way
they were before, and I'm not hearing any complaining for those.  So I
didn't want to change legacy behavior for other code paths.  But it was
clear that we didn't need those unmount messages just to display the
version on the secondary flash.  There's probably a bug filed somewhere
for the excess spewage on "system version -s" but it's too damn
difficult to search clearcrap to find bugs.  Let QA close them in their
copious leasure time.

> Did you want to handle the case where u_mount_secondary is called and
> there is nothing for it to unmount (called twice,) or the case where
> the fstab passed in doesn't match the flash layout? I think this is
> bug # 18506.

Those are the changes in cmd_flash.c.  The swonky/swappy/whatever
stuff?  I don't know what 18506 is.  I already have a bug against it,
18410.  I will check into 18506 and get back to you.

> That's all the comments I have.
>=20
> Larry
>=20
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp=20
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 1:41 PM
> To: Larry Scheer
> Subject: please review
>=20
> Change 23481 by andys@ripper on 2007/04/09 16:35:16 *pending*
>=20
>         Fix segfault when trying to check software version on
> secondary flash and secondary flash is swonky.
>        =20
>         Fix related errors of other commands like "system config copy"
>         that don't work if there is a swonky secondary flash card.
>        =20
>         Fix excess spewage from "system version -s" command.
>        =20
>         TED00018372 seg fault when "system version -s"
>         TED00018410 cannot system copy init / system copy all [-i]
> after No bug for excess spewage.
>        =20
>         swonky, n.: /etc/fstab file has device names hosed.
>        =20
>         Reviewed by .
>=20
>=20
> Affected files ...
>=20
> ... //depot/FB-DELOREAN/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_flash.c#6 edit
> ... //depot/FB-DELOREAN/nfx-tree/code/ssc-nfxsh/cmd_upgrade.c#12 edit
>=20
>=20
>=20
> fixes for:
>=20
>     TED00018372 seg fault when "system version -s"
>     TED00018410 cannot system copy init / system copy all [-i] after
