On 2019/11/28 10:25, Yan, Zheng wrote:
On 11/27/19 6:45 PM, xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx>
The cap->implemented is one subset of the cap->issued, the logic
here want to exclude the revoking caps, but the following code
will be (~cap->implemented | cap->issued) == 0xFFFF, so it will
make no sense when we doing the "have &= 0xFFFF".
Signed-off-by: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ceph/caps.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ceph/caps.c b/fs/ceph/caps.c
index c62e88da4fee..a9335402c2a5 100644
--- a/fs/ceph/caps.c
+++ b/fs/ceph/caps.c
@@ -812,7 +812,7 @@ int __ceph_caps_issued(struct ceph_inode_info
*ci, int *implemented)
*/
if (ci->i_auth_cap) {
cap = ci->i_auth_cap;
- have &= ~cap->implemented | cap->issued;
+ have &= ~(cap->implemented & ~cap->issued);
The end result is the same.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
Yeah, right, it is.
BRs
}
return have;
}
