From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757802Ab0IZNCj (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:02:39 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:60047 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757745Ab0IZNCi (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 09:02:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; b=IjVhimWDnaLQpf+YexO5Xq6p0TAMX5AcF81/sGlk1/BQo0joBiLbd3t237csBk7G9x /Ycv38Ax4Ek+NUEuvFsTud2XK84qgWacKUn7VltbrQ/LwhQ37+7f5P6ekEcmf4TCq5lU FScSAE4TRF39rJ6mOS1RbjC9RpxbbIKaRN+wY= Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:02:33 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Andrew Morton , LKML , =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E1rton_N=E9meth?= , "H. Peter Anvin" , Ian Kent Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] autofs: Only declare function when CONFIG_COMPAT is defined Message-ID: <20100926130230.GA5378@nowhere> References: <1285334543-7074-1-git-send-regression-fweisbec@gmail.com> <201009251755.57690.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201009251755.57690.arnd@arndb.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 05:55:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 24 September 2010 15:22:22 Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > From: Márton Németh > > > > The patch solves the following warnings message when CONFIG_COMPAT > > is not defined: > > > > fs/autofs/root.c:30: warning: ‘autofs_root_compat_ioctl’ declared ‘static’ but never defined > > > > Signed-off-by: Márton Németh > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann > > My initial reaction was to put these into my bkl/vfs tree, but then I noticed > that they are against a 2.6.36 bug. Who's taking care of getting them upstream? > > - Ian (maintainer) > - Arnd (who wrote the broken patch to start with) > - Frederic (who pushed the broken patch to Linus) > - Andrew (took them into -mm) > > I don't care either way, just trying to make sure it gets there and we don't > all submit the same patch simultaneously. > > The current state is annoying but harmless, so I could also just add the > patches to my 2.6.37 queue, which already has autofs patches for the BKL. > > Arnd I think Andrew has taken the autofs one, as I've received an mmotm notification. I don't know about the autofs4 one though.