[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.23
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 10 2007 14:36, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>>> --- linux-2.6.23/include/linux/mm.h.vanilla
>>>>> +++ linux-2.6.23/include/linux/mm.h
>>>>> +struct super_block;
>>>>> extern void drop_pagecache_sb(struct super_block *);
>>>>> void drop_pagecache(void);
>>>>> void drop_slab(void);
>>>>> You probably end up fixing it some other way, but as I do not know this
>>>>> file inside out I just wanted to drop a note.
>>>> You have some strange vanilla kernel. 2.6.23 doesn't have this prototype.
>>> The same happens here as well.
>>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 mjt mjt 45488158 Oct 9 20:48 linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2
>>> 2cc2fd4d521dc5d7cfce0d8a9d1b3472 linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2
>>> (timestamp is in UTC) Downloaded yesterday, 3 hours after an announce,
>>> from .
>> Strange. Same size, same md5, no super_block in mm.h, though
> Does someone still have the broken tarball?
> There has not been any drop_pagecache_sb anytime between 2.6.23-rc1
> and 2.6.23. drop_pagecache_sb reminds me of reiser4, too.

ghhrm. That's nonsense. I found where that struct super_block come
from -- it's from unionfs patches for 2.6.22, which I forgot to
update for 2.6.23 (I just dropped new kernel tarball into my
build directory together with other patches and ran usual build
procedure). It's a definitely false alarm - the tarball is

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-10 13:15    [W:0.042 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site