2007-09-12 02:06:32

by Paul Mundt

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

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 a function)
make[2]: *** [fs/unionfs/file.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[1]: *** [fs/unionfs] Error 2

Signed-off-by: Paul Mundt <[email protected]>

--

include/linux/buffer_head.h | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1.orig/include/linux/buffer_head.h 2007-09-11 15:15:56.000000000 +0900
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc4-mm1/include/linux/buffer_head.h 2007-09-12 10:18:57.000000000 +0900
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
#include <linux/wait.h>
#include <asm/atomic.h>

+int file_fsync(struct file *, struct dentry *, int);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK

enum bh_state_bits {
@@ -225,7 +227,6 @@
sector_t generic_block_bmap(struct address_space *, sector_t, get_block_t *);
int generic_commit_write(struct file *, struct page *, unsigned, unsigned);
int block_truncate_page(struct address_space *, loff_t, get_block_t *);
-int file_fsync(struct file *, struct dentry *, int);
int nobh_prepare_write(struct page*, unsigned, unsigned, get_block_t*);
int nobh_commit_write(struct file *, struct page *, unsigned, unsigned);
int nobh_truncate_page(struct address_space *, loff_t);

2007-09-12 09:30:34

by Christoph Hellwig

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

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.

2007-09-12 23:28:23

by Josef Sipek

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

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.