On Mon, 29 Dec 2008, Julia Lawall wrote: > From: Julia Lawall <julia@xxxxxxx> > > This set of patches introduces calls to the following set of functions: > > usb_endpoint_dir_in(epd) > usb_endpoint_dir_out(epd) > usb_endpoint_is_bulk_in(epd) > usb_endpoint_is_bulk_out(epd) > usb_endpoint_is_int_in(epd) > usb_endpoint_is_int_out(epd) > usb_endpoint_num(epd) > usb_endpoint_type(epd) > usb_endpoint_xfer_bulk(epd) > usb_endpoint_xfer_control(epd) > usb_endpoint_xfer_int(epd) > usb_endpoint_xfer_isoc(epd) ... > drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c | 1 + ... > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c > index 88fedd0..c44092b 100644 > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/file_storage.c > @@ -248,6 +248,7 @@ > #include <linux/freezer.h> > #include <linux/utsname.h> > > +#include <linux/usb.h> > #include <linux/usb/ch9.h> > #include <linux/usb/gadget.h> While there's nothing wrong with this part of the patch, it hardly seems necessary. Was there any reason for including it? Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
