[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPybu_3B7r-xy5uVLkfhkuH0Pan-R=uq=ONouy=nGzjB2ixCbw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 21:21:15 +0200
From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@...il.com>
To: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>, maurochehab@...il.com,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
Ezequiel GarcĂa <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, kgene@...nel.org,
k.kozlowski@...sung.com, linux-media <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, chuansheng.liu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0658/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
Hi
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Baole Ni <baolex.ni@...el.com> wrote:
> thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.
For what my opinion is worth it... I found more comprehensive the
octal values than the macros, but maybe it is because I am old and
dream in hexadecimal....
I do not know if there is a consensus about this, but if there is not
maybe we should have that discussion before sending a 1K patchset.
Regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists