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/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c index e397f54..4043224 100644 --- a/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c +++ b/drivers/media/usb/em28xx/em28xx-cards.c @@ -44,24 +44,24 @@ #define DRIVER_NAME "em28xx" static int tuner = -1; -module_param(tuner, int, 0444); +module_param(tuner, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(tuner, "tuner type"); static unsigned int disable_ir; -module_param(disable_ir, int, 0444); +module_param(disable_ir, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_ir, "disable infrared remote support"); static unsigned int disable_usb_speed_check; -module_param(disable_usb_speed_check, int, 0444); +module_param(disable_usb_speed_check, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_usb_speed_check, "override min bandwidth requirement of 480M bps"); static unsigned int card[] = {[0 ... (EM28XX_MAXBOARDS - 1)] = -1U }; -module_param_array(card, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(card, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(card, "card type"); static int usb_xfer_mode = -1; -module_param(usb_xfer_mode, int, 0444); +module_param(usb_xfer_mode, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(usb_xfer_mode, "USB transfer mode for frame data (-1 = auto, 0 = prefer isoc, 1 = prefer bulk)"); -- 2.9.2
