From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S967969AbcHBQXs (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 12:23:48 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:48710 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934055AbcHBMMA (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 08:12:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 14:10:58 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Baole Ni Cc: tony.luck@intel.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chuansheng.liu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0032/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro Message-ID: <20160802121058.GA12726@nazgul.tnic> References: <20160802103551.15907-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160802103551.15907-1-baolex.ni@intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org First of all, what is that flood of patches and why am I on CC on so many, even if I don't have anything to do with the code most of them touch? Have you heard of get_maintainer.pl? Then, I'd never do all that "work" that if I were you. Then, your patch Subject is the *same* on every patch. Not good. Ditto for the commit message but I guess one can do only so many variations of the same thing. On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:35:51PM +0800, Baole Ni wrote: > 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. I don't think this is a valid argument - I can understand 0644 much faster than the macros but maybe this is just me... > Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu > Signed-off-by: Baole Ni This SOB chain is wrong. Why are there two people doing a trivial patch? > --- > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > index 92e5e37..95b3028 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mcheck/mce.c > @@ -2345,10 +2345,10 @@ static ssize_t store_int_with_restart(struct device *s, > return ret; > } > > -static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, 0644, show_trigger, set_trigger); > -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, 0644, mca_cfg.tolerant); > -static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, 0644, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout); > -static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, 0644, mca_cfg.dont_log_ce); > +static DEVICE_ATTR(trigger, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, show_trigger, set_trigger); > +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(tolerant, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.tolerant); > +static DEVICE_INT_ATTR(monarch_timeout, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.monarch_timeout); > +static DEVICE_BOOL_ATTR(dont_log_ce, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH, mca_cfg.dont_log_ce); So no, I won't take this senseless churn - it doesn't fix or improve anything IMO. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --