From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965460AbcHBOzJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 10:55:09 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:57284 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S935050AbcHBMil (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:38:41 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,460,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="1006964470" From: Baole Ni To: oleg.drokin@intel.com, andreas.dilger@intel.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, m.chehab@samsung.com, pawel@osciak.com, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, k.kozlowski@samsung.com Cc: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jsimmons@infradead.org, dmitry.eremin@intel.com, jinshan.xiong@intel.com, olaf@sgi.com, chuansheng.liu@intel.com, baolex.ni@intel.com, dan.carpenter@oracle.com Subject: [PATCH 0943/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 20:00:58 +0800 Message-Id: <20160802120058.12894-1-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/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpcd.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpcd.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpcd.c index 76a355a..6961762 100644 --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpcd.c +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/ptlrpc/ptlrpcd.c @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ struct ptlrpcd { * is used to derive a setting for ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max. */ static int max_ptlrpcds; -module_param(max_ptlrpcds, int, 0644); +module_param(max_ptlrpcds, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_ptlrpcds, "Max ptlrpcd thread count to be started."); /* @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_ptlrpcds, "Max ptlrpcd thread count to be started."); * is used to derive a setting for ptlrpcd_partner_group_size. */ static int ptlrpcd_bind_policy; -module_param(ptlrpcd_bind_policy, int, 0644); +module_param(ptlrpcd_bind_policy, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_bind_policy, "Ptlrpcd threads binding mode (obsolete)."); @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_bind_policy, * in a CPT. */ static int ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max; -module_param(ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max, int, 0644); +module_param(ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max, "Max ptlrpcd thread count to be started per cpt."); @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_per_cpt_max, * a CPT partners of each other. */ static int ptlrpcd_partner_group_size; -module_param(ptlrpcd_partner_group_size, int, 0644); +module_param(ptlrpcd_partner_group_size, int, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_partner_group_size, "Number of ptlrpcd threads in a partner group."); @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_partner_group_size, * run ptlrpcd threads on CPTS 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. */ static char *ptlrpcd_cpts; -module_param(ptlrpcd_cpts, charp, 0644); +module_param(ptlrpcd_cpts, charp, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptlrpcd_cpts, "CPU partitions ptlrpcd threads should run in"); -- 2.9.2