Sure will do that. Sorry for the inconvenience, I am a bit new to the
process of emailing patches. Should I mark the next patch as v3?
On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 18:13, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> wrote:
>
> [added "v2" to the subject, would have been better if you had already
> done that. I don't know if/how this confuses tools like b4 and patchwork]
>
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 04:17:30PM +0530, Soham Biswas wrote:
> > Fixes the following warning generated by checkpatch:
> >
> > drivers/pwm/core.c:1341: WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO' are
> > not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0444'.
> >
> > +debugfs_create_file("pwm", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, NULL, NULL,
> > &pwm_debugfs_fops);
>
> something like: "Permission bits are easier readable in octal than with
> using the symbolic names." in the commit log would be good for those of
> us who missed why this was added to checkpatch.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
