Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:27:16 -0400 | From | Josef Sipek <> | Subject | 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |