Home » Mailing list archives » linux-kernel » 2007 » September » 12

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

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 - 5:30 am

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 11:06:10AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:

Unionfs should stop using it instead.

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
[PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOCK=n, Paul Mundt, (Tue Sep 11, 10:06 pm)
Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOC..., Christoph Hellwig, (Wed Sep 12, 5:30 am)
Re: [PATCH -mm] fs: define file_fsync() even for CONFIG_BLOC..., Josef Sipek, (Wed Sep 12, 7:27 pm)