Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:01:32 +0100 | From | "Jesper Juhl" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/13] "const static" vs "static const" in nfs4 |
| |
On 2/24/06, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 21:49 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > My previous "const static" vs "static const" cleanup missed a single case, > > patch below takes care of it. > > > > I can shepherd that in for 2.6.17 (unless Andrew wants to make it a > 2.6.16 priority?). >
No need for that. It's just something that ICC complains about "storage class not being first" - gcc doesn't care.
2.6.17 is fine, no need to rush that one.
Just a small thing that might as well be done :)
-- Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - 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/
| |