Around Tue 02 Aug 2016 18:34:07 +0800 or thereabout, 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 <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <[email protected]>
Fine by me. Acked-by: Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt <[email protected]> > --- > arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c | 12 ++++++------ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c > index 0341ae2..c4c96af 100644 > --- a/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -171,12 +171,12 @@ static ssize_t store_pcenable(struct device *dev, > return count; > } > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0event, 0600, show_pc0event, store_pc0event); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0count, 0600, show_pc0count, store_pc0count); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1event, 0600, show_pc1event, store_pc1event); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1count, 0600, show_pc1count, store_pc1count); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pccycles, 0600, show_pccycles, store_pccycles); > -static DEVICE_ATTR(pcenable, 0600, show_pcenable, store_pcenable); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0event, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc0event, > store_pc0event); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0count, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc0count, > store_pc0count); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1event, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc1event, > store_pc1event); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1count, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc1count, > store_pc1count); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pccycles, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pccycles, > store_pccycles); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(pcenable, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pcenable, > store_pcenable); > > #endif /* CONFIG_PERFORMANCE_COUNTERS */ -- Best regards, Hans-Christian Noren Egtvedt
