From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752209AbdLJWzv (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:55:51 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0215.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.215]:35375 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751137AbdLJWzt (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:55:49 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 6A6F6540706572636865732E636F6D X-Spam-Summary: 2,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,joe@perches.com,:::::::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:973:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1373:1431:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1541:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:1981:2194:2199:2393:2553:2559:2562:2828:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3871:3872:3874:4321:5007:7514:7903:10004:10400:10848:11232:11658:11914:12296:12740:12760:12895:13069:13161:13229:13311:13357:13439:14096:14097:14181:14659:14721:21063:21080:21326:21627:30034:30054:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: fire40_4f9dc2808001c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2168 Message-ID: <1512946545.26342.20.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] eeprom: at24: fix coding style issues From: Joe Perches To: Bartosz Golaszewski , Andy Shevchenko Cc: Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Peter Rosin , linux-i2c , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:55:45 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <20171207133915.29448-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20171207133915.29448-2-brgl@bgdev.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 19:42 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2017-12-10 13:57 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko : > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > Fix issues reported by checkpatch for at24.c. > > > +module_param(io_limit, uint, 0000); > > > +module_param(write_timeout, uint, 0000); > > > > > > 0 is a pretty much octal number as 0000. > > So, I would prefer not to blindly follow the stupid advise from > > checkpatch, better to teach checkpatch about 0. > > > > > > I submitted a patch for that - let's see what checkpatch maintainers say. Personally, I prefer 4 digit octal in most cases as it shows the coder knows that the argument is a permissions use and not just some generic 0. There are not many uses of 0 for permissions outside of module_param*. I suppose all the variants of module_param calls, as a 0 there is specifically a "not to appear in sysfs" flag, could or should be excluded from that octal test.