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
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
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.
CC fs/unionfs/file.o
fs/unionfs/file.c:148: error: 'file_fsync' undeclared here (not in
3 matches
Mail list logo
