[PATCH v3] Documentation: checkpatch: Add SYMBOLIC_PERMS message

[Lukas Bulwahn]

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 9:56 PM Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 7:16 PM Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 07:21:50PM +0530, Dwaipayan Ray wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 9:02 PM Utkarsh Verma <utkarshverma294 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add a new message type SYMBOLIC_PERMS under the 'Permissions'
> > > > subsection. Checkpatch documentation that recommends the user to use
> > >
> > > Did you mean: Checkpatch recommends the user to use octal
> > > permission bits...?
> > >
> >
> > No.
> > This patch adds documentation that explains to the user why octal
> > permission should be used. So in the commit description, which explains
> > my patch I wrote, "Checkpatch documentation that recommends the user ...."
> >
> > If it's sounding vague, then should I change the commit description to:
> >
> > "Add a new message type SYMBOLIC_PERMS under the 'Permissions'
> >  subsection. Users should use octal permission bits instead of their
> >  symbolic macro names."
> >
>
> I think it reads better that way. Please make the change.
>

I think even better would be something like:

Explain to the reader why to use octal permission bits instead of
their symbolic macro names.

instead of "Users should use octal permission bits instead of their
symbolic macro names."

... and then actually have the documentation explain why (Linus and
the rest of the community believes) octal permission bits are better
than the symbolic macro names.


Lukas