From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baole Ni Subject: [PATCH 0061/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 18:37:51 +0800 Message-ID: <20160802103751.17826-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> Return-path: Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:18534 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753778AbcHBLPb (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 07:15:31 -0400 Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, tj@kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@intel.com, baolex.ni@intel.com, travis@sgi.com 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. Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu Signed-off-by: Baole Ni --- drivers/ata/pata_ali.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_ali.c b/drivers/ata/pata_ali.c index d19cd88..e104c6b 100644 --- a/drivers/ata/pata_ali.c +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_ali.c @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ #define DRV_VERSION "0.7.8" static int ali_atapi_dma = 0; -module_param_named(atapi_dma, ali_atapi_dma, int, 0644); +module_param_named(atapi_dma, ali_atapi_dma, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(atapi_dma, "Enable ATAPI DMA (0=disable, 1=enable)"); static struct pci_dev *ali_isa_bridge; -- 2.9.2