Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:06:10AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> There's nothing that is problematic for file_fsync() with CONFIG_BLOCK=n,
> and it's built in unconditionally anyways, so move the prototype out to
> reflect that. Without this, the unionfs build bails out.

Unionfs should stop using it instead.

-
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 -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
  - From: Josef Sipek <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
  - From: Paul Mundt <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: hci_sock.c build failure
Next by Date: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1: kgdboe link errors
Previous by thread: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
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]