[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160802131937.GB11666@home.goodmis.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 09:19:37 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
Cc: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
tj@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
chuansheng.liu@...el.com, travis@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0063/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > > static int all;
> > > -module_param(all, int, 0444);
> > > +module_param(all, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
> >
> > There's S_IRUGO for this case, no?
Sure, and honestly, I understand what 0444 is better than seeing:
S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | SIROTH
Heck, 0444 is more understandable to me than S_IRUGO, because honestly, those
macros are just as cryptic as 0444 is. Working with Unix/Linux systems since
1991, I understand the octo numbers very well. And I'm sure most other people
do to. Any file that I'm Cc'd on here will get an automatic NAK from me.
>
> Sending 1285 patches with the same subject also was a bad idea. You need
> a subsystem/driver prefix in order to somehow differ them.
Yes, it's a very good way to be added to everyone's /dev/null folder too. Each
subsystem should have one patch that covers all its files. Not a patch per
file!
What? Is Intel now give extra bonuses for commit numbers?
Sorry, but I'm a little grumpy when my phone starts popping like a popcorn
machine while I'm having my breakfast because of these silly emails.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists