On 11/26/2016 03:50 PM, Andrea Ghittino wrote:
> Fixes greybus user/groups permission style warnings
> found by checkpatch.pl tool
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrea Ghittino <aghittino at gmail.com>
I don't understand why using 0444 would be preferred
over S_IRUGO (for example). Do you know? Maybe the
checkpatch.pl output says something about it. There
may well be a good reason, but otherwise I prefer
using the symbolic constants (and therefore *not*
applying this patch).
-Alex
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> index 1c5b41a..4424f63 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/greybus/camera.c
> @@ -1067,22 +1067,22 @@ struct gb_camera_debugfs_entry {
> static const struct gb_camera_debugfs_entry gb_camera_debugfs_entries[] = {
> {
> .name = "capabilities",
> - .mask = S_IFREG | S_IRUGO,
> + .mask = S_IFREG | 0444,
> .buffer = GB_CAMERA_DEBUGFS_BUFFER_CAPABILITIES,
> .execute = gb_camera_debugfs_capabilities,
> }, {
> .name = "configure_streams",
> - .mask = S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUGO,
> + .mask = S_IFREG | 0666,
> .buffer = GB_CAMERA_DEBUGFS_BUFFER_STREAMS,
> .execute = gb_camera_debugfs_configure_streams,
> }, {
> .name = "capture",
> - .mask = S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUGO,
> + .mask = S_IFREG | 0666,
> .buffer = GB_CAMERA_DEBUGFS_BUFFER_CAPTURE,
> .execute = gb_camera_debugfs_capture,
> }, {
> .name = "flush",
> - .mask = S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUGO,
> + .mask = S_IFREG | 0666,
> .buffer = GB_CAMERA_DEBUGFS_BUFFER_FLUSH,
> .execute = gb_camera_debugfs_flush,
> },
> @@ -1097,7 +1097,7 @@ static ssize_t gb_camera_debugfs_read(struct file *file, char __user *buf,
> ssize_t ret;
>
> /* For read-only entries the operation is triggered by a read. */
> - if (!(op->mask & S_IWUGO)) {
> + if (!(op->mask & 0222)) {
> ret = op->execute(gcam, NULL, 0);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
