From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl0-f65.google.com ([209.85.160.65]:44615 "EHLO mail-pl0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751531AbeBZXgn (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Feb 2018 18:36:43 -0500 Received: by mail-pl0-f65.google.com with SMTP id w21so10237629plp.11 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:36:43 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:36:41 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/27] btrfs-progs: introduce libbtrfsutil, "btrfs-progs as a library" Message-ID: <20180226233641.GA15264@vader.DHCP.thefacebook.com> References: <20180220185048.GR10193@twin.jikos.cz> <20180221151338.GF1469@twin.jikos.cz> <20180221185032.GA879@vader> <20180223202841.GL1469@twin.jikos.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20180223202841.GL1469@twin.jikos.cz> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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?