[PATCH 0197/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

2016-08-02 Thread Baole Ni
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

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0197/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

2016-08-02 Thread Lukas Wunner
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:37:37PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:48:47PM +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,

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0197/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

2016-08-02 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 02:37:37PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:48:47PM +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,

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0197/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

2016-08-02 Thread Jani Nikula
On Tue, 02 Aug 2016, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:48:47PM +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

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0197/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

2016-08-02 Thread Ville Syrjälä
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:48:47PM +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,