Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753237AbaAZUZQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:25:16 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f47.google.com ([74.125.83.47]:49908 "EHLO mail-ee0-f47.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752818AbaAZUZO (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jan 2014 15:25:14 -0500 Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 21:25:09 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linus Torvalds Cc: David Howells , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-afs@lists.infradead.org, Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: proc cells and rootcell are writeable Message-ID: <20140126202509.GA10275@gmail.com> References: <20140126122729.32113.19659.stgit@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <20140126201928.GA8224@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140126201928.GA8224@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:27 AM, David Howells wrote: > > > > > > - p = proc_create("cells", 0, proc_afs, &afs_proc_cells_fops); > > > + p = proc_create("cells", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, proc_afs, &afs_proc_cells_fops); > > > - p = proc_create("rootcell", 0, proc_afs, &afs_proc_rootcell_fops); > > > + p = proc_create("rootcell", S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR, proc_afs, &afs_proc_rootcell_fops); > > > > So the S_IFREG isn't necessary. > > > > And quite frankly, I personally think S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR is _less_ > > readable than 0644. It's damn hard to parse those random letter > > combinations, and at least I have to really think about it, in a way > > that the octal representation does *not* make me go "I have to think > > about that". > > > > So my personal preference would be to just see that simple 0644 in > > proc_create. Hmm? > > Perhaps we could also generate the most common variants as: > > #define PERM__rw_r__r__ 0644 > #define PERM__r________ 0400 > #define PERM__r__r__r__ 0444 > #define PERM__r_xr_xr_x 0555 > > etc. > > or something similar, more or less matching the output of 'ls -l'? Another variant of this would be to do the following macro: PERM(R_X, R_X, R_X) PERM(R__, R__, R__) PERM(RW_, R__, R__) With the advantage of separating the groups better and reducing the number of constants needed. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/