Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
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. Without this, the unionfs build bails out. > > Unionfs should stop using it instead. We did stop. Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. -- NT is to UNIX what a doughnut is to a particle accelerator. - 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/
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/
Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
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. Without this, the unionfs build bails out. Unionfs should stop using it instead. We did stop. Josef 'Jeff' Sipek. -- NT is to UNIX what a doughnut is to a particle accelerator. - 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/
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/
