On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 10:11 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:08:25 -0700
Joe Perches [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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@perches.com>

quoted

 
-#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.

Fewer #ifdefs