On 02/08/16 12:40, 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.
NAK. To anyone with enough Unix experience to be contributing to the kernel,
the octal values are *easier* to read: they're compact, and usually just take
one of a few stereotyped values anyway (mostly 0444 or 0644). The macros are
full of fluffy noise and take longer to read.
(Also, if you're sending a 1,285-patch series, you should probably reconsider
the choices that have brought you to this point.)
-Ed
> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng....@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> index 1f30912..fcf06c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> @@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ static ssize_t efx_ef10_show_primary_flag(struct device
> *dev,
> ? 1 : 0);
> }
>
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH,
> efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
> NULL);
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH,
> efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);
>
> static int efx_ef10_probe(struct efx_nic *efx)
> {
