On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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
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
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:20AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
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.
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
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.
CC fs/unionfs/file.o
fs/unionfs/file.c:148: error: 'file_fsync' undeclared here (not in
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.
CC fs/unionfs/file.o
fs/unionfs/file.c:148: error: 'file_fsync' undeclared here (not in
6 matches
Mail list logo
