On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 09:28:42PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:50:32AM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 04:13:38PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:50:48PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > > > > I have more comments or maybe questions about the future development > > > > workflow, but at this point the patchset is in a good shape for > > > > incremental merge. > > > > > > After removnig the first patch adding subvolume.c (with > > > linux/btrfs_tree.h) and what depends on it, I'm left with: > > > > > > Omar Sandoval (4): > > > Add libbtrfsutil > > > libbtrfsutil: add Python bindings > > > libbtrfsutil: add qgroup inheritance helpers > > > libbtrfsutil: add filesystem sync helpers > > > > > > with some context updates. That builds and passes the CI tests. > > > > Great. Does the CI system run the Python tests yet? > > Tested here https://travis-ci.org/kdave/btrfs-progs/jobs/345410536 , > does not pass. > > > test_start_sync (test_filesystem.TestSubvolume) ... mkfs.btrfs: invalid option -- 'q' > usage: mkfs.btrfs [options] dev [ dev ... ] > > > Looks like it tries to use the system mkfs.btrfs that is old. Hm... according the documentation for the existing tests, the person running the tests is expected to set PATH to contain the local binaries, otherwise it'll use the system ones. Does the CI system not do that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
