[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1470160338.3998.193.camel@perches.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2016 10:52:18 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0001/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 19:42 +0200, Pavel Machek 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.
> >
> > -core_param(no_bL_switcher, no_bL_switcher, bool, 0644);
> > +core_param(no_bL_switcher, no_bL_switcher, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
> Everyone knows what 0644 is, but noone can read S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR |
> S_IRCRP | S_IROTH (*). Please don't do this.
Perhaps this conversion is best done in reverse with
most all of the S_[A-Z]{5,5} uses converted to octal.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists