2006-05-22 07:08:45

by David Miller

Subject: Re: [PATCH] implicit declaration of function `page_cache_release'

From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:01:03 +0200

> So the patch should be reverted? Its only for CONFIG_SWAP=n, rather
> unusual for KDE/GNOME tainted workstations...

Not necessarily, but the header dependencies should be fixed
up somehow.

2006-05-22 07:11:10

by Olaf Hering

Subject: Re: [PATCH] implicit declaration of function `page_cache_release'

On Sat, Aug 06, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: Olaf Hering <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 17:01:03 +0200
>
> > So the patch should be reverted? Its only for CONFIG_SWAP=n, rather
> > unusual for KDE/GNOME tainted workstations...
>
> Not necessarily, but the header dependencies should be fixed
> up somehow.

I think you are right once again.
(Just the time got a bit out of sync.)