From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: pavel@ucw.cz (Pavel Machek)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:54:30 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 0001/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro
In-Reply-To: <1470160338.3998.193.camel@perches.com>
References: <20160802103322.13810-1-baolex.ni@intel.com>
 <20160802174253.GA4628@amd> <1470160338.3998.193.camel@perches.com>
Message-ID: <20160802175430.GA22232@amd>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue 2016-08-02 10:52:18, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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.

I'd prefer that, yes.. But lets discuss that before another 1200 patch
patchbomb...

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html