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]> --- arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c b/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c index 0341ae2..c4c96af 100644 --- a/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c +++ b/arch/avr32/kernel/cpu.c @@ -171,12 +171,12 @@ static ssize_t store_pcenable(struct device *dev, return count; } -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0event, 0600, show_pc0event, store_pc0event); -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0count, 0600, show_pc0count, store_pc0count); -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1event, 0600, show_pc1event, store_pc1event); -static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1count, 0600, show_pc1count, store_pc1count); -static DEVICE_ATTR(pccycles, 0600, show_pccycles, store_pccycles); -static DEVICE_ATTR(pcenable, 0600, show_pcenable, store_pcenable); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0event, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc0event, store_pc0event); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc0count, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc0count, store_pc0count); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1event, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc1event, store_pc1event); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pc1count, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pc1count, store_pc1count); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pccycles, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pccycles, store_pccycles); +static DEVICE_ATTR(pcenable, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, show_pcenable, store_pcenable); #endif /* CONFIG_PERFORMANCE_COUNTERS */ -- 2.9.2
