Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 18 Nov 2020 10:35:06 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pwm: core: Use octal permission |
| |
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 08:51:13AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, Soham Biswas wrote: > > > This fixes the following warning: > > > > `drivers/pwm/core.c:1341: WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO' are > > not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0444'.` > > > > generated by the following script: > > > > `./scripts/checkpatch.pl --file --terse drivers/pwm/core.c` > > Oh, it's a checkpatch.pl thing. > > You should definitely quote the warning and describe where it came > from in the commit log. > > Not entirely sure what that warning is the result of. Probably as > they're sightly harder to read and easier to get wrong. Still, I'll > let Thierry decide whether the patch itself is suitable for inclusion > into the PWM core. > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 23:42, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 17 Nov 2020, Soham Biswas wrote: > > > > > > > Fixed Warning. > > > > > > Which warning does this fix? > > > > > > > Replaced symbolic permission 'S_IRUGO' with octal permission '0444'. > > > > > > This is semantically equivalent. > > > > > > Not sure what and/or how this fixes anything. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Soham Biswas <sohambiswas41@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/pwm/core.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/core.c b/drivers/pwm/core.c > > > > index 1f16f5365d3c..a8eff4b3ee36 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/pwm/core.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/pwm/core.c > > > > @@ -1338,7 +1338,7 @@ DEFINE_SEQ_ATTRIBUTE(pwm_debugfs); > > > > > > > > static int __init pwm_debugfs_init(void) > > > > { > > > > - debugfs_create_file("pwm", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO, NULL, NULL, > > > > + debugfs_create_file("pwm", S_IFREG | 0444, NULL, NULL,
Actually I'd prefer keeping the symbolic name because this is easier to grep for. So to convince me a better reason than "checkpatch says so" is needed.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ | [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |