Roel Kluin wrote: > A few patches with changes to net code. I have sent these to the lkml > previously, but they were not yet merged. I am fairly new to kernel > programming, so it is possible that I make some mistakes. I'll explain my > rationale, please nack if incorrect, an additional bit of explanation is > appreciated even more. > > The condition '!x & y,' does make little sense: the '!' has a higher > priority than '&'. It behaves therefore like '!x && y'. In the case > bitanding flags, however, '!(x & y)' appears to be desired. > > Warning: the change of '!x & y,' to '!(x & y)' may change behavior. if > not desired, I propose changing this to '!x && y', to make it explicitly > clear. > > These '&' typo's can be spotted with: > a="A-Za-z0-9_" > git-grep "\![^$a()]*[$a]\+\([$a.]*\|->\)*\(\[[$a.]*\]\)\?[ \W]*&[^&]\+" > > -- > Fix priority mistakes similar to '!x & y' > > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/82571.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/82571.c > index cf70522..14141a5 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/e1000e/82571.c > +++ b/drivers/net/e1000e/82571.c > @@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ static s32 e1000_get_invariants_82571(struct > e1000_adapter *adapter) > adapter->flags &= ~FLAG_HAS_WOL; > /* quad ports only support WoL on port A */ > if (adapter->flags & FLAG_IS_QUAD_PORT && > - (!adapter->flags & FLAG_IS_QUAD_PORT_A)) > + (!(adapter->flags & FLAG_IS_QUAD_PORT_A))) > adapter->flags &= ~FLAG_HAS_WOL; > break; >
Ack this e1000e change here! Auke (PS since there was only 1 netdriver patch here and the rest is wireless, I would have suggested splitting this patch up in two and sending them to the wireless maintainer and netdevice maintainer separately. But I'm sure this will get picked up anyway.) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
