From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicholas Mc Guire Subject: Re: [PATCH 1149/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:08:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20160816110845.GA21629@osadl.at> References: <20160802122044.26724-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.osadl.at (mail.osadl.at [92.243.35.153]) by alsa0.perex.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABA9265CC5 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2016 13:09:02 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802122044.26724-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org Sender: alsa-devel-bounces@alsa-project.org To: Baole Ni Cc: k.kozlowski@samsung.com, chuansheng.liu@intel.com, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hofrat@osadl.org, tiwai@suse.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, aryabinin@virtuozzo.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, davem@davemloft.net, serge@hallyn.com List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:20:44PM +0800, Baole Ni 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. this is actually a quite common issue - taking your example and generalizing it into a simple coccinelle scanner shows aproximately 1400 cases for module_param, module_param_array and module_param_named. > > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni > --- > sound/core/oss/pcm_oss.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/sound/core/oss/pcm_oss.c b/sound/core/oss/pcm_oss.c > index ebc9fdf..0ff0dd8 100644 > --- a/sound/core/oss/pcm_oss.c > +++ b/sound/core/oss/pcm_oss.c > @@ -53,11 +53,11 @@ static bool nonblock_open = 1; > MODULE_AUTHOR("Jaroslav Kysela , Abramo Bagnara "); > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("PCM OSS emulation for ALSA."); > MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > -module_param_array(dsp_map, int, NULL, 0444); > +module_param_array(dsp_map, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); as S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH == S_IRUGO this (and the others below could be simplfied +module_param_array(dsp_map, int, NULL, S_IRUGO); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(dsp_map, "PCM device number assigned to 1st OSS device."); > -module_param_array(adsp_map, int, NULL, 0444); > +module_param_array(adsp_map, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(adsp_map, "PCM device number assigned to 2nd OSS device."); > -module_param(nonblock_open, bool, 0644); > +module_param(nonblock_open, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); for 0644 one could also use S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO which might be more redaable here as well. > MODULE_PARM_DESC(nonblock_open, "Don't block opening busy PCM devices."); > MODULE_ALIAS_SNDRV_MINOR(SNDRV_MINOR_OSS_PCM); > MODULE_ALIAS_SNDRV_MINOR(SNDRV_MINOR_OSS_PCM1); thx! hofrat