Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

[PATCH 0732/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

Posted by 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 of the code,
thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
index 1f30912..fcf06c5 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
@@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ static ssize_t efx_ef10_show_primary_flag(struct device *dev,
? 1 : 0);
}

-static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
+static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
NULL);
-static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);
+static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);

static int efx_ef10_probe(struct efx_nic *efx)
{
--
2.9.2
On 02/08/16 12:40, 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.
NAK. To anyone with enough Unix experience to be contributing to the kernel,
the octal values are *easier* to read: they're compact, and usually just take
one of a few stereotyped values anyway (mostly 0444 or 0644). The macros are
full of fluffy noise and take longer to read.
(Also, if you're sending a 1,285-patch series, you should probably reconsider
the choices that have brought you to this point.)
-Ed
> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> index 1f30912..fcf06c5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/sfc/ef10.c
> @@ -275,9 +275,9 @@ static ssize_t efx_ef10_show_primary_flag(struct device *dev,
> ? 1 : 0);
> }
>
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(link_control_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_link_control_flag,
> NULL);
> -static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, 0444, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);
> +static DEVICE_ATTR(primary_flag, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, efx_ef10_show_primary_flag, NULL);
>
> static int efx_ef10_probe(struct efx_nic *efx)
> {
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login