[PATCH 0812/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[PATCH 0812/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[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/nvme/host/pci.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
index befac5b..c7bcf34 100644
--- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
+++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static int use_threaded_interrupts;
 module_param(use_threaded_interrupts, int, 0);
 
 static bool use_cmb_sqes = true;
-module_param(use_cmb_sqes, bool, 0644);
+module_param(use_cmb_sqes, bool, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(use_cmb_sqes, "use controller's memory buffer for I/O SQes");
 
 static struct workqueue_struct *nvme_workq;
-- 
2.9.2

Re: [PATCH 0812/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Sagi Grimberg]

I assume that you didn't try to send a 1285 patches set :)

I think you can safely squash the two patches together.

Re: [PATCH 0812/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:29:53PM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> I assume that you didn't try to send a 1285 patches set :)

No he actually did. And some of us were unfortunate enough to be Cc'd on a
hundred of them.

> 
> I think you can safely squash the two patches together.

I've NAKed all patches I was Cc'd on. IMNSHO the change makes it less readable
and more error prone.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH 0812/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Borislav Petkov]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:57:25AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> No he actually did. And some of us were unfortunate enough to be Cc'd
> on a hundred of them.

Lucky you, I got 400 and it is still counting...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--