On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:56:46 +0800 Baole Ni <[email protected]> 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. > > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > index 8688ad4..56d3671 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/virtio/virtio_ccw.c > @@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@ static unsigned long devs_no_auto[__MAX_SSID + > 1][__DEV_WORDS]; > > static char *no_auto = ""; > > -module_param(no_auto, charp, 0444); > +module_param(no_auto, charp, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); > MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_auto, "list of ccw bus id ranges not to be > auto-onlined"); > > static int virtio_ccw_check_autoonline(struct ccw_device *cdev) NACK. I find 0444 more readable. <And some general remarks: Your patches are lacking a proper component prefix and have a rather long list of people on to: ...and sending 1000+ patches to lkml at once is not a very good idea either.>
