Hi Ian yes its a coding style issue(checkpatch.pl WARN)
and reference: https://lwn.net/Articles/696229/ (sorry about the noise.) -- Matias Mucciolo Area de Infraestructura. Piedras 737 C.A.B.A SUTEBA On Monday 12 September 2016 16:52:59 Ian Abbott wrote: > On 12/09/16 14:18, Matias Mucciolo wrote: > > > > From: Matias Mucciolo <mmucci...@suteba.org.ar> > > > > - Fixed coding style in comedi_fops.c Symbolic to octal permission. > > > > Signed-off-by: Matias Mucciolo <mmucci...@suteba.org.ar> > > --- > > drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c > > b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c > > index 1999eed..bf922ea 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c > > @@ -81,20 +81,20 @@ struct comedi_file { > > (COMEDI_NUM_MINORS - COMEDI_NUM_BOARD_MINORS) > > > > static int comedi_num_legacy_minors; > > -module_param(comedi_num_legacy_minors, int, S_IRUGO); > > +module_param(comedi_num_legacy_minors, int, 0444); > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(comedi_num_legacy_minors, > > "number of comedi minor devices to reserve for > > non-auto-configured devices (default 0)" > > ); > > > > unsigned int comedi_default_buf_size_kb = > > CONFIG_COMEDI_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE_KB; > > -module_param(comedi_default_buf_size_kb, uint, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR); > > +module_param(comedi_default_buf_size_kb, uint, 0644); > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(comedi_default_buf_size_kb, > > "default asynchronous buffer size in KiB (default " > > __MODULE_STRING(CONFIG_COMEDI_DEFAULT_BUF_SIZE_KB) ")"); > > > > unsigned int comedi_default_buf_maxsize_kb > > = CONFIG_COMEDI_DEFAULT_BUF_MAXSIZE_KB; > > -module_param(comedi_default_buf_maxsize_kb, uint, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR); > > +module_param(comedi_default_buf_maxsize_kb, uint, 0644); > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(comedi_default_buf_maxsize_kb, > > "default maximum size of asynchronous buffer in KiB (default " > > __MODULE_STRING(CONFIG_COMEDI_DEFAULT_BUF_MAXSIZE_KB) ")"); > > > > In my review of the earlier patch, I said I was fine with the octal > constants, but on reflection, I'm not sure it's worth changing them just > for the hell of it. We'd probably get a patch from someone else later > to change it back to symbolic constants. Is there an actual coding > style issue, or is this just a personal preference? > > -- > -=( Ian Abbott @ MEV Ltd. E-mail: <abbo...@mev.co.uk> )=- > -=( Web: http://www.mev.co.uk/ )=- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
