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 <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <[email protected]> --- drivers/hid/hid-roccat-koneplus.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-roccat-koneplus.c b/drivers/hid/hid-roccat-koneplus.c index 09e8fc7..4ce8c6d 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/hid-roccat-koneplus.c +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-roccat-koneplus.c @@ -291,10 +291,10 @@ static ssize_t koneplus_sysfs_set_actual_profile(struct device *dev, return size; } -static DEVICE_ATTR(actual_profile, 0660, +static DEVICE_ATTR(actual_profile, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IWGRP, koneplus_sysfs_show_actual_profile, koneplus_sysfs_set_actual_profile); -static DEVICE_ATTR(startup_profile, 0660, +static DEVICE_ATTR(startup_profile, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IWGRP, koneplus_sysfs_show_actual_profile, koneplus_sysfs_set_actual_profile); @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ static ssize_t koneplus_sysfs_show_firmware_version(struct device *dev, return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", info.firmware_version); } -static DEVICE_ATTR(firmware_version, 0440, +static DEVICE_ATTR(firmware_version, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP, koneplus_sysfs_show_firmware_version, NULL); static struct attribute *koneplus_attrs[] = { -- 2.9.2
