On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 16:54 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Baole Ni <baolex...@intel.com> writes:
>
> > 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....@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > index 6b978f0..5e81dc3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/misc/usbtest.c
> > @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
> >
> > /*-------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
> >
> > static int override_alt = -1;
> > -module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, 0644);
> > +module_param_named(alt, override_alt, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP |
> > S_IROTH);
>
> line too long. You need to run this series through scripts/checkpatch.pl
>
Before we think about that, the basic question whether
S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH
is clearer and easier to read than
0644
must be decided. I would saz no, it is not.
Regards
Oliver
