From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966834AbcHBQrn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:47:43 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:47475 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933215AbcHBMAj (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:00:39 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,460,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="743076938" From: Baole Ni To: mchehab@kernel.org, maurochehab@gmail.com, mchehab@infradead.org, mchehab@redhat.com, m.chehab@samsung.com, hverkuil@xs4all.nl, s.nawrocki@samsung.com, kgene@kernel.org, k.kozlowski@samsung.com Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@intel.com, baolex.ni@intel.com, jh1009.sung@samsung.com, nenggun.kim@samsung.com, niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se Subject: [PATCH 0535/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 19:21:50 +0800 Message-Id: <20160802112150.17627-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.9.2 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 Signed-off-by: Baole Ni --- drivers/media/radio/radio-aimslab.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/media/radio/radio-aimslab.c b/drivers/media/radio/radio-aimslab.c index ea930879..30dfdae 100644 --- a/drivers/media/radio/radio-aimslab.c +++ b/drivers/media/radio/radio-aimslab.c @@ -54,9 +54,9 @@ static int io[RTRACK_MAX] = { [0] = CONFIG_RADIO_RTRACK_PORT, [1 ... (RTRACK_MAX - 1)] = -1 }; static int radio_nr[RTRACK_MAX] = { [0 ... (RTRACK_MAX - 1)] = -1 }; -module_param_array(io, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(io, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(io, "I/O addresses of the RadioTrack card (0x20f or 0x30f)"); -module_param_array(radio_nr, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(radio_nr, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(radio_nr, "Radio device numbers"); struct rtrack { -- 2.9.2