Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n

[Josef Sipek]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/