> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:36:08 +0200
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:49:38 -0500
> > > "Jose R. Santos" <jrs@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:50:46 +0200
> > > > Jan Kara <jack@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > > > > > Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >-#define create_jbd_proc_entry() do {} while (0)
> > > > > > >-#define remove_jbd_proc_entry() do {} while (0)
> > > > > > >+static ctl_table fs_table[] = {
> > > > > > >+ {
> > > > > > >+ .ctl_name = -1, /* Don't want it */
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > shouldn't this be CTL_UNNUMBERED ?
> > > > > Oh, it should be. I didn't notice we have this :) Thanks for notifying
> > > > > me. Attached is a fixed version.
> > > >
> > > > This was fixed in JBD2 by moving the jbd-debug file to debugfs:
> > > >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/11/334
> > > >
> > > > Since this code is already in the kernel, we should keep it consistent.
> > > >
> > >
> > > OK. Here's a quick patch to fix this. Adapted from the JBD2 patch.
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > Looks fine - exactly what I've just done here :).
>
> hm. I found rather a lot of issues. If this patch is derived from the
> JBD2 patch then perhaps the JBD2 patch needs some looking at.
