On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:08:25 -0700
Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> -#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-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
