[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <335df7ab-6663-b14a-de33-7a485489c20e@suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:05:48 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com,
peter@...sgaard.com, lee.jones@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0122/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
On 08/02/2016, 03:57 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c
>> @@ -683,7 +683,7 @@ static void __exit powernow_exit(void)
>> cpufreq_unregister_driver(&powernow_driver);
>> }
>>
>> -module_param(acpi_force, int, 0444);
>> +module_param(acpi_force, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>
> This is an excellent example. To me, 0444 is _much_ more readable and
> understandable than S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH.
If anything, that should be S_IRUGO. However, I personally prefer
numbers over macros too.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists