Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0732/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro | From | Edward Cree <> | Date | Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:34:13 +0100 |
| |
On 02/08/16 12:40, Baole Ni wrote: > I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value > when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission. > As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro, > and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code, > thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro. NAK. To anyone with enough Unix experience to be contributing to the kernel, the octal values are *easier* to read: they're compact, and usually just take one of a few stereotyped values anyway (mostly 0444 or 0644). The macros are full of fluffy noise and take longer to read. (Also, if you're sending a 1,285-patch series, you should probably reconsider the choices that have brought you to this point.) -Ed > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com> > --- > drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c > index 1f30912..fcf06c5 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c > @@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ static ssize_t efx_ef10_show_primary_flag(struct device *dev, > ? 1 : 0); > } > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag, > +static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag, > NULL); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL); > > static int efx_ef10_probe(struct efx_nic *efx) > {
| |