Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: checkpatch: Add SYMBOLIC_PERMS message

[Jonathan Corbet]

Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 1:53 PM Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Add a new message type SYMBOLIC_PERMS under the 'Permissions'
>> subsection. Octal permission bits are easier to read and understand
>> instead of their symbolic macro names.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst | 11 +++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
>> index f0956e9ea2d8..41037594ec24 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst
>> @@ -957,6 +957,17 @@ Permissions
>>      Permission bits should use 4 digit octal permissions (like 0700 or 0444).
>>      Avoid using any other base like decimal.
>>
>> +  **SYMBOLIC_PERMS**
>> +    Permission bits in the octal form are more readable and easier to
>> +    understand than their symbolic counterparts because many command-line
>> +    tools use this notation only. Experienced kernel developers have been using
>
> Let's remove "only".
>
>> +    this traditional Unix permission bits for decades and so they find it
>
> Maybe you meant "these" here.
>
> With these changes made,
> Acked-by: Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@xxxxxxxxx>

I took the liberty of apply the patch with those changes made.

Thanks,

jon