Re: Linux 2.6.23

[Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Oct 10 2007 14:36, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>>> --- linux-2.6.23/include/linux/mm.h.vanilla
>>>>> +++ linux-2.6.23/include/linux/mm.h
>>>>> +struct super_block;
>>>>>  extern void drop_pagecache_sb(struct super_block *);
>>>>>  void drop_pagecache(void);
>>>>>  void drop_slab(void);
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably end up fixing it some other way, but as I do not know this
>>>>> file inside out I just wanted to drop a note.
>>>> You have some strange vanilla kernel. 2.6.23 doesn't have this prototype.
>>> The same happens here as well.
>>>
>>> -rw-rw-r--  1 mjt mjt 45488158 Oct  9 20:48 linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2
>>> 2cc2fd4d521dc5d7cfce0d8a9d1b3472  linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> (timestamp is in UTC) Downloaded yesterday, 3 hours after an announce,
>>> from http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.23.tar.bz2 .
>> Strange. Same size, same md5, no super_block in mm.h, though
> 
> Does someone still have the broken tarball?
> 
> There has not been any drop_pagecache_sb anytime between 2.6.23-rc1
> and 2.6.23. drop_pagecache_sb reminds me of reiser4, too.

ghhrm.  That's nonsense.  I found where that struct super_block come
from -- it's from unionfs patches for 2.6.22, which I forgot to
update for 2.6.23 (I just dropped new kernel tarball into my
build directory together with other patches and ran usual build
procedure).  It's a definitely false alarm - the tarball is
fine.

/mjt