On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:49:17PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 05:10:57PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Hello, > > > > v3 can be found here > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1697480198.git.josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > There's been a longer delay between versions than I'd like, this was mostly due > > to Plumbers, Holidays, and then uncovering a bunch of new issues with '-o > > test_dummy_encryption'. I'm still working through some of the btrfs specific > > failures, but the fscrypt side appears to be stable. I had to add a few changes > > to fscrypt since the last time, but nothing earth shattering, just moving the > > keyring destruction and adding a helper we need for btrfs send to work properly. > > > > This is passing a good chunk of the fstests, at this point the majority appear > > to be cases where I need to exclude the test when using test_dummy_encryption > > because of various limitations of our tools or other infrastructure related > > things. > > > > I likely will have a follow-up series with more fixes, but the bulk of this is > > unchanged since the last posting. There were some bug fixes and such but the > > overall design remains the same. Thanks, > > > > Well, it wouldn't be Linux kernel development without patchsets that don't > mention what they apply to... I managed to apply this for reviewing after > spending a while choosing the base that seemed to work best (6d3880a76eedd from > kdave/for-next) and resolving conflicts. It would save a lot of time if proper > information was included, though. Right, the base branch should have been mentioned, we have the development git tree on github and not on kernel.org. For future reference: https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/Source-repositories.html#kernel-module
