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]> --- drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c index c894b94..58a741f 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/net2280.c @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static const struct { static ushort fifo_mode; /* "modprobe net2280 fifo_mode=1" etc */ -module_param(fifo_mode, ushort, 0644); +module_param(fifo_mode, ushort, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); /* enable_suspend -- When enabled, the driver will respond to * USB suspend requests by powering down the NET2280. Otherwise, @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ module_param(fifo_mode, ushort, 0644); static bool enable_suspend; /* "modprobe net2280 enable_suspend=1" etc */ -module_param(enable_suspend, bool, 0444); +module_param(enable_suspend, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); #define DIR_STRING(bAddress) (((bAddress) & USB_DIR_IN) ? "in" : "out") -- 2.9.2
