Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4

On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case,
> patch below takes care of it.
> 

I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a
2.6.16 priority?).

Cheers,
  Trond

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
  - From: "Jesper Juhl" <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
  - From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: Suppress APIC errors on UP x86-64.
Next by Date: Re: Which of the virtualization approaches is more suitable for kernel?
Previous by thread: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Stuff] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind] [Linux Resources]