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]> --- fs/cifs/cifsfs.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c index 5d8b7ed..b391d72 100644 --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c @@ -76,10 +76,10 @@ module_param(cifs_min_small, uint, 0); MODULE_PARM_DESC(cifs_min_small, "Small network buffers in pool. Default: 30 " "Range: 2 to 256"); unsigned int cifs_max_pending = CIFS_MAX_REQ; -module_param(cifs_max_pending, uint, 0444); +module_param(cifs_max_pending, uint, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(cifs_max_pending, "Simultaneous requests to server. " "Default: 32767 Range: 2 to 32767."); -module_param(enable_oplocks, bool, 0644); +module_param(enable_oplocks, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable_oplocks, "Enable or disable oplocks. Default: y/Y/1"); extern mempool_t *cifs_sm_req_poolp; -- 2.9.2
