From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935899AbcHBRaX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:30:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:33271 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932532AbcHBR26 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 13:28:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:27:56 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Baole Ni Cc: hal.rosenstock@gmail.com, dledford@redhat.com, sean.hefty@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, haibo.chen@freescale.com, andrey.gelman@compulab.co.il, broonie@kernel.org, afd@ti.com, javier@osg.samsung.com, chuansheng.liu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0290/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Message-ID: <20160802172756.GA5012@dtor-ws> References: <20160802105711.703-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802105711.703-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:57:11PM +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. > > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni > --- > drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c > index a61b215..0f882cb 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c > +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c > @@ -591,7 +591,7 @@ static ssize_t ads7846_disable_store(struct device *dev, > return count; > } > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(disable, 0664, ads7846_disable_show, ads7846_disable_store); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(disable, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IWGRP | S_IROTH, ads7846_disable_show, ads7846_disable_store); No, this does not improve neither robustness nor readability. Thanks. -- Dmitry