Quoting Serge E. Hallyn ([email protected]): > Quoting Oren Laadan ([email protected]): > > From: Dave Hansen <[email protected]> > > > > This marks ext[234] as being checkpointable. There will be many > > more to do this to, but this is a start. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/ext2/dir.c | 1 + > > fs/ext2/file.c | 2 ++ > > fs/ext3/dir.c | 1 + > > fs/ext3/file.c | 1 + > > fs/ext4/dir.c | 1 + > > fs/ext4/file.c | 1 + > > 6 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext2/dir.c b/fs/ext2/dir.c > > index 2999d72..4f1dd79 100644 > > --- a/fs/ext2/dir.c > > +++ b/fs/ext2/dir.c > > @@ -721,4 +721,5 @@ const struct file_operations ext2_dir_operations = { > > .compat_ioctl = ext2_compat_ioctl, > > #endif > > .fsync = ext2_sync_file, > > + .checkpoint = generic_file_checkpoint, > > The checkpoint() method is only defined in struct file_operations if > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=y. So this can't possibly compile when > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=n...
BTW i think the better way to handle it is not to put everything under ifdefs, but rather always let file_operations have the ->checkpoint() fn, and just make generic_file_checkpoint() a dummy function when CONFIG_CHECKPOINT=n. -serge _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
