Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:13:03 +0400 | From | Michael Tokarev <> | Subject | Re: 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 http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2 . >> 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 fine.
/mjt - 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/
| |