lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Please don't replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
    On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:58:29PM -0400, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > [ So I answered similarly to another patch, but I'll just re-iterate
    > and change the subject line so that it stands out a bit from the
    > millions of actual patches ]
    >
    > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
    > >
    > > Everyone knows what 0644 is, but noone can read S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR |
    > > S_IRCRP | S_IROTH (*). Please don't do this.
    >
    > Absolutely. It's *much* easier to parse and understand the octal
    > numbers, while the symbolic macro names are just random line noise and
    > hard as hell to understand. You really have to think about it.
    >
    > So we should rather go the other way: convert existing bad symbolic
    > permission bit macro use to just use the octal numbers.
    >
    > The symbolic names are good for the *other* bits (ie sticky bit, and
    > the inode mode _type_ numbers etc), but for the permission bits, the
    > symbolic names are just insane crap. Nobody sane should ever use them.
    > Not in the kernel, not in user space.

    Except that you are inviting the mixes like S_IFDIR | 17 /* oops, should've
    been 017, or do we spell it 0017? */ that way. I certainly agree that this
    patch series had been a huge pile of manure, but "let's convert it in other
    direction" is inviting pretty much the same thing, with lovely potential for
    typos, etc.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-08-03 03:21    [W:3.148 / U:0.432 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site