First of all, what is that flood of patches and why am I on CC on so many, even if I don't have anything to do with the code most of them touch? Have you heard of get_maintainer.pl?
Then, I'd never do all that "work" that if I were you. Then, your patch Subject is the *same* on every patch. Not good. Ditto for the commit message but I guess one can do only so many variations of the same thing. On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:35:51PM +0800, 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. I don't think this is a valid argument - I can understand 0644 much faster than the macros but maybe this is just me... > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <[email protected]> This SOB chain is wrong. Why are there two people doing a trivial patch? > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > index 92e5e37..95b3028 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > @@ -2345,10 +2345,10 @@ static ssize_t store_int_with_restart(struct device > *s, > return ret; > } > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, 0644, show_trigger, set_trigger); > -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, 0644, mca_cfg.tolerant); > -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, 0644, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout); > -static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, 0644, mca_cfg.dont_log_ce); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, > show_trigger, set_trigger); > +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, > mca_cfg.tolerant); > +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | > S_IROTH, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout); > +static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, > mca_cfg.dont_log_ce); So no, I won't take this senseless churn - it doesn't fix or improve anything IMO. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --
