On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 09:27:06PM +0530, Aviral Gupta wrote:
> It's better to use octal permissons instead of symbolic ones because peoples are more
> familiar with octal permissons.
> WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0644'.
> + md->force_ro.attr.mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR;
>
> WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0444'.
> + mode = S_IRUGO;
>
> WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0644'.
> + mode = S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR;
>
> WARNING: Symbolic permissions 'S_IRUSR' are not preferred. Consider using octal permissions '0400'.
> + debugfs_create_file("ext_csd", S_IRUSR, root, card,
>
> Signed-off-by: Aviral Gupta <shiv14112001@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Hi,
This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.
You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:
- You did not write a descriptive Subject: for the patch, allowing Greg,
and everyone else, to know what this patch is all about. Please read
the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what a proper Subject: line should
look like.
If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.
thanks,
greg k-h's patch email bot
