On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Ville Tervo <ville.tervo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -1014,13 +1029,13 @@ static int l2cap_sock_connect(struct socket *sock, struct sockaddr *addr, int al
> len = min_t(unsigned int, sizeof(la), alen);
> memcpy(&la, addr, len);
>
> - if (la.l2_cid)
> ++ if (la.l2_cid && la.l2_psm)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> lock_sock(sk);
>
> if ((sk->sk_type == SOCK_SEQPACKET || sk->sk_type == SOCK_STREAM)
> - && !la.l2_psm) {
> + && !(la.l2_psm || la.la_cid)) {
> err = -EINVAL;
> goto done;
> }
This snippet looks strange for two reasons:
1) the "++" marker looks weird. Corrupted patch?
2) there is a typo here : la.la_cid -> la.l2_cid . Didn't the compiler
catch this?
Note that there are some other occurrences of "++" in this patch.
Regards,
--
Anderson Lizardo
OpenBossa Labs - INdT
Manaus - Brazil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
