On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 08:07:11PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Tuesday 2016-08-02 14:17, 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. > > > > static int ip_vs_conn_tab_bits = CONFIG_IP_VS_TAB_BITS; > >-module_param_named(conn_tab_bits, ip_vs_conn_tab_bits, int, 0444); > >+module_param_named(conn_tab_bits, ip_vs_conn_tab_bits, int, S_IRUSR | > >S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); > > We have S_IRUGO for this.
Aye, for further edification, Baole, please read include/linux/stat.h, particularly this part: #define S_IRWXUGO (S_IRWXU|S_IRWXG|S_IRWXO) #define S_IALLUGO (S_ISUID|S_ISGID|S_ISVTX|S_IRWXUGO) #define S_IRUGO (S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH) #define S_IWUGO (S_IWUSR|S_IWGRP|S_IWOTH) #define S_IXUGO (S_IXUSR|S_IXGRP|S_IXOTH) I suspect many of the patches in this set should be using one of the above defines instead, never mind the ridiculousness of firing off such a massive set at once, with every patch having the same (often not correct) title, and the highly questionable benefit of the set to begin with. -- Jarod Wilson ja...@redhat.com
