[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:0.022 / U:0.780 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site