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/workqueue.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c index e1c0e99..74d92b0 100644 --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -284,11 +284,11 @@ static cpumask_var_t *wq_numa_possible_cpumask; /* possible CPUs of each node */ static bool wq_disable_numa; -module_param_named(disable_numa, wq_disable_numa, bool, 0444); +module_param_named(disable_numa, wq_disable_numa, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); /* see the comment above the definition of WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT */ static bool wq_power_efficient = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_WQ_POWER_EFFICIENT_DEFAULT); -module_param_named(power_efficient, wq_power_efficient, bool, 0444); +module_param_named(power_efficient, wq_power_efficient, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static bool wq_numa_enabled; /* unbound NUMA affinity enabled */ @@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static bool wq_debug_force_rr_cpu = true; #else static bool wq_debug_force_rr_cpu = false; #endif -module_param_named(debug_force_rr_cpu, wq_debug_force_rr_cpu, bool, 0644); +module_param_named(debug_force_rr_cpu, wq_debug_force_rr_cpu, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); /* the per-cpu worker pools */ static DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct worker_pool [NR_STD_WORKER_POOLS], cpu_worker_pools); @@ -5423,7 +5423,7 @@ static const struct kernel_param_ops wq_watchdog_thresh_ops = { }; module_param_cb(watchdog_thresh, &wq_watchdog_thresh_ops, &wq_watchdog_thresh, - 0644); + S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); static void wq_watchdog_init(void) { -- 2.9.2
