[PATCH 1070/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[PATCH 1070/1285] 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>
---
 kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
index 3cee0d8..3812e93 100644
--- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
+++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ torture_param(bool, shutdown, false, "Shutdown at end of performance tests.");
 torture_param(bool, verbose, true, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s");
 
 static char *perf_type = "rcu";
-module_param(perf_type, charp, 0444);
+module_param(perf_type, charp, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, ...)");
 
 static int nrealreaders;
@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int rcu_perf_writer_state;
 #define RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT 0
 #endif
 static int perf_runnable = RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT;
-module_param(perf_runnable, int, 0444);
+module_param(perf_runnable, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_runnable, "Start rcuperf at boot");
 
 /*
-- 
2.9.2

Re: [PATCH 1070/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue,  2 Aug 2016 20:13:43 +0800
Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com> 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.

NACK!

I find 0444 more readable than S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH.

-- Steve

> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu <chuansheng.liu@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Baole Ni <baolex.ni@intel.com>
> ---
>  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> index 3cee0d8..3812e93 100644
> --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@ torture_param(bool, shutdown, false, "Shutdown at end of performance tests.");
>  torture_param(bool, verbose, true, "Enable verbose debugging printk()s");
>  
>  static char *perf_type = "rcu";
> -module_param(perf_type, charp, 0444);
> +module_param(perf_type, charp, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, ...)");
>  
>  static int nrealreaders;
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int rcu_perf_writer_state;
>  #define RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT 0
>  #endif
>  static int perf_runnable = RCUPERF_RUNNABLE_INIT;
> -module_param(perf_runnable, int, 0444);
> +module_param(perf_runnable, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
>  MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_runnable, "Start rcuperf at boot");
>  
>  /*