I find that the developers often just specified the numeric value when calling a macro which is defined with a parameter for access permission. As we know, these numeric value for access permission have had the corresponding macro, and that using macro can improve the robustness and readability of the code, thus, I suggest replacing the numeric parameter with the macro.

Signed-off-by: Chuansheng Liu chuansheng.liu@intel.com Signed-off-by: Baole Ni baolex.ni@intel.com --- sound/drivers/aloop.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sound/drivers/aloop.c b/sound/drivers/aloop.c index 54f348a..03cc8be 100644 --- a/sound/drivers/aloop.c +++ b/sound/drivers/aloop.c @@ -55,15 +55,15 @@ static bool enable[SNDRV_CARDS] = {1, [1 ... (SNDRV_CARDS - 1)] = 0}; static int pcm_substreams[SNDRV_CARDS] = {[0 ... (SNDRV_CARDS - 1)] = 8}; static int pcm_notify[SNDRV_CARDS];

-module_param_array(index, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(index, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(index, "Index value for loopback soundcard."); -module_param_array(id, charp, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(id, charp, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(id, "ID string for loopback soundcard."); -module_param_array(enable, bool, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(enable, bool, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(enable, "Enable this loopback soundcard."); -module_param_array(pcm_substreams, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(pcm_substreams, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(pcm_substreams, "PCM substreams # (1-8) for loopback driver."); -module_param_array(pcm_notify, int, NULL, 0444); +module_param_array(pcm_notify, int, NULL, S_IRUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH); MODULE_PARM_DESC(pcm_notify, "Break capture when PCM format/rate/channels changes.");

#define NO_PITCH 100000