On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 01:41:31AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2020-11-18 at 10:35 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Actually I'd prefer keeping the symbolic name because this is easier to > > grep for. So to convince me a better reason than "checkpatch says so" is > > needed. > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ca+55afw5v23t-zvdzp-mmd_eyxf8wbafwwb59934fv7g21u...@mail.gmail.com/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 16:58:29 -0400 > > The symbolic names are good for the *other* bits (ie sticky bit, and > the inode mode _type_ numbers etc), but for the permission bits, the > symbolic names are just insane crap. Nobody sane should ever use them. > Not in the kernel, not in user space. > > Linus
OK, "Linus says so" is considerably stronger than "checkpatch says so". So if you respin the patch with a better commit log, that's fine for me. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
