[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <063D6719AE5E284EB5DD2968C1650D6D5F50893F@AcuExch.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:47:14 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Baole Ni' <baolex.ni@...el.com>,
"3chas3@...il.com" <3chas3@...il.com>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"lenb@...nel.org" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: "linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"chuansheng.liu@...el.com" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0071/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
From: Baole Ni
> Sent: 02 August 2016 11:39
> 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.
...
> -module_param(debug, ulong, 0644);
> +module_param(debug, ulong, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
...
If you're as old as I am the octal constant is easier to read!
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists