On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 19:42 +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > 2017-12-10 13:57 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com>: > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <b...@bgdev.pl> 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.
