Staging: speakup - syle fix permissions to octal

[Guenter Roeck]

On 02/04/2017 06:29 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2017, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2017 11:27 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
>>> (adding Julia Lawall)
>>>
>>> On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 20:44 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 07:05:09PM +1300, Derek Robson wrote:
>>>>> A style fix across whole driver.
>>>>> changed permissions to octal style, found using checkpatch
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Derek Robson <robsonde at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, I think changes like this are best done using coccinelle.
>>>
>>> I think checkpatch does it reasonably well.
>>>
>>> Julia?  Can coccinelle do this?
>>>
>>> I believe cocinelle doesn't handle the substitution
>>> and octal addition very well when multiple flags
>>> are used.
>>>
>>
>> Why not ? Seems to be quite simple. One just has to list all the variants
>> being used in the rule.
>>
>>>> That ensures that the results can be reproduced and are well defined.
>>>> As it is, someone will have to check each line of your patches to ensure
>>>> that the conversion is correct.
>>>>
>>>> It would also ensure (hopefully) that we don't end up with constructs
>>>> such as
>>>>
>>>>> -#define USER_R (S_IFREG|S_IRUGO)
>>>>> -#define USER_W (S_IFREG|S_IWUGO)
>>>>> +#define USER_R (S_IFREG|0444)
>>>>> +#define USER_W (S_IFREG|0666)
>>>>
>>>> which really defeat the purpose of the whole exercise.
>>>
>>> Why do you think mixing file specific attributes
>>> with octal permissions is a bad thing?
>>>
>>
>> Just an assumption. My bad. Ultimately, what I think doesn't really
>> matter, though - because what I think is that the whole "use octals"
>> is a bad idea to start with.
>
> I don't think I have received yet the message that this is referring to.
> But I don't see a problem for Coccinelle a priori.  If there are things
> that need to be added together, as long as they are explicit constants,
> that can be done in python or ocaml.
>

Something like

@@
@@

(
- S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUGO
+ S_IFREG | 0666
|
- S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IRGRP | S_IROTH
+ 0644
|
- S_IRUGO|S_IWUSR
+ 0644
|
- S_IWUSR|S_IRUGO
+ 0644
|
- S_IRUGO|S_IWUGO
+ 0666
|
- S_IWUGO|S_IRUGO
+ 0666
|
- S_IRUGO
+ 0444
|
- S_IWUGO
+ 0222
|
- S_IWUSR
+ 0200
)

Odd is that the S_IFREG rule seems to be needed to catch "S_IFREG | S_IRUGO | S_IWUGO",
but probably I am missing something as usual ;-).

Guenter