Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0984/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro | From | Oliver Neukum <> | Date | Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:30:52 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 16:54 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com> writes: > > > 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. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c > > index 6b978f0..5e81dc3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c > > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c > > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ > > /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ > > > > static int override_alt = -1; > > -module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, 0644); > > +module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); > > line too long. You need to run this series through scripts/checkpatch.pl >
Before we think about that, the basic question whether
S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH
is clearer and easier to read than
0644
must be decided. I would saz no, it is not.
Regards Oliver
| |