On Thu, 2019-11-28 at 15:53 +0800, Xiubo Li wrote:
> 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
>
Dropping this patch.
Cheers,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
