On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:08:25 -0700 Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote:
> seq_printf functions shouldn't really check the return value. > Checking seq_is_full occasionally is used instead. > > Update vfs documentation. > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS > -static int eventfd_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *f) > +static void eventfd_show_fdinfo(struct seq_file *m, struct file *f) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS > struct eventfd_ctx *ctx = f->private_data; > - int ret; > > spin_lock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock); > - ret = seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n", > - (unsigned long long)ctx->count); > + seq_printf(m, "eventfd-count: %16llx\n", > + (unsigned long long)ctx->count); > spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->wqh.lock); > - > - return ret; > -} > #endif > +} > > static const struct file_operations eventfd_fops = { > -#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_FS > .show_fdinfo = eventfd_show_fdinfo, > -#endif I wouldn't change logic on this. There's no reason to call this function if it isn't doing anything. I'll change this to just do the update and not change logic like this. -- Steve > .release = eventfd_release, > .poll = eventfd_poll, > .read = eventfd_read, > diff --git a/fs/proc/fd.c b/fs/proc/fd.c > index e11d7c5..4c3c253 100644 > --- a/fs/proc/fd.c > +++ b/fs/proc/fd.c > @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static int seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v) > (long long)file->f_pos, f_flags, > real_mount(file->f_path.mnt)->mnt_id); > if (file->f_op->show_fdinfo) > - ret = file->f_op->show_fdinfo(m, file); > + file->f_op->show_fdinfo(m, file); > fput(file); > } > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
