From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] proc: make grab_header static Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:23:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20080717232328.GO28946@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <1216329755.6029.31.camel@brick> <20080717150950.5d721d90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:43608 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933525AbYGQXXb (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:23:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080717150950.5d721d90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Harvey Harrison , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:22:35 -0700 > Harvey Harrison wrote: > > > fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c:69:25: warning: symbol 'grab_header' was not declared. Should it be static? > urgh. We need to do something here. > > People are dumping large hunks of 2.6.28 material into linux-next > during the merge window. This screws me up because I haven't merged > into 2.6.27 yet, and my patch queue is based on linux-next. And I > _have_ to do that, because lots of the git trees haven't merged into > mainline yet. FWIW, you are slightly misreading the situation - it *is* my fault, but in a different way. What's happening is not development going into that branch - it's untangling a huge pile of pending patches into sequence. And yes, it should've gone public as-is a couple of weeks ago ;-/