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]