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]> --- kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c index 3cee0d8..3812e93 100644 --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ torture_param(bool, shutdown, false, "Shutdown at end of performance tests."); torture_param(bool, verbose, true, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s"); static char *perf_type = "rcu"; -module_param(perf_type, charp, 0444); +module_param(perf_type, charp, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, ...)"); static int nrealreaders; @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int rcu_perf_writer_state; #define RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT 0 #endif static int perf_runnable = RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT; -module_param(perf_runnable, int, 0444); +module_param(perf_runnable, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_runnable, "Start rcuperf at boot"); /* -- 2.9.2
