Re: [PATCH 0063/1285] Replace numeric parameter like 0444 with macro

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 03:32:57PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > >  static int all;
> > > -module_param(all, int, 0444);
> > > +module_param(all, int, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH);
> > 
> >    There's S_IRUGO for this case, no?

Sure, and honestly, I understand what 0444 is better than seeing:

  S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | SIROTH

Heck, 0444 is more understandable to me than S_IRUGO, because honestly, those
macros are just as cryptic as 0444 is. Working with Unix/Linux systems since
1991, I understand the octo numbers very well. And I'm sure most other people
do to. Any file that I'm Cc'd on here will get an automatic NAK from me.

> 
>    Sending 1285 patches with the same subject also was a bad idea. You need
> a subsystem/driver prefix in order to somehow differ them.

Yes, it's a very good way to be added to everyone's /dev/null folder too. Each
subsystem should have one patch that covers all its files. Not a patch per
file!

What? Is Intel now give extra bonuses for commit numbers?

Sorry, but I'm a little grumpy when my phone starts popping like a popcorn
machine while I'm having my breakfast because of these silly emails.

-- Steve