Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:05:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:05:14 -0500 Received: from 513.holly-springs.nc.us ([216.27.31.173]:24077 "EHLO 513.holly-springs.nc.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:04:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3A2FF454.373A5142@holly-springs.nc.us> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:34:28 -0500 From: Michael Rothwell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.18pre21 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: 2.2.18 vs 2.4.0 proc_fs.c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Why is 2.2.18 proc_fs.c different than both 2.2.17 and 2.4.0? Cox, would you accept a patch that makes 2.2.18 define create_proc_info_entry and related functions the same way that 2.4.0 does? 2.2.17: does not define this 2.2.18: #define create_proc_info_entry(n, m, b, g) \ { \ struct proc_dir_entry *r = create_proc_entry(n, m, b); \ if (r) r->get_info = g; \ } 2.4.0: extern inline struct proc_dir_entry *create_proc_info_entry(const char *name, mode_t mode, struct proc_dir_entry *base, get_info_t *get_info) { struct proc_dir_entry *res=create_proc_entry(name,mode,base); if (res) res->get_info=get_info; return res; } - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/