[PATCH] x25: bit and/or confusion in x25_ioctl()?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Looking at commit ebc3f64b864f it appears that this was intended
and not the original, equivalent to `if (facilities.reverse & ~0x81)'.

In x25_parse_facilities() that patch changed how facilities->reverse
was set. No other bits were set than 0x80 and/or 0x01.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@xxxxxxxxx>
This is correct isn't it?

diff --git a/net/x25/af_x25.c b/net/x25/af_x25.c
index 7fa9c7a..ca4dc28 100644
--- a/net/x25/af_x25.c
+++ b/net/x25/af_x25.c
@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
 			    facilities.throughput > 0xDD)
 			if (facilities.reverse &&
-				(facilities.reverse | 0x81)!= 0x81)
+				(facilities.reverse & 0x81) != 0x81)
 			x25->facilities = facilities;
 			rc = 0;
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-x25" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Linux ACPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

Add to Google Powered by Linux