> Force of habit because some compilers issue a warning when a bitwise
> operator is used in a context expecting a logical result.
indeed. Good point.
/Bernd
Ian Abbott wrote:
On 2013-01-29 12:41, Dan Carpenter wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:00:27PM +0000, Ian Abbott wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
index b798e42..6bfaeef 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/comedi/comedi_fops.c
@@ -2358,8 +2358,10 @@ int comedi_alloc_subdevice_minor(struct
comedi_device *dev,
if (!info)
return -ENOMEM;
info->device = dev;
- info->read_subdevice = s;
- info->write_subdevice = s;
+ if ((s->subdev_flags & SDF_CMD_READ) != 0)
This patch is fine but why add != 0 to if statements?
Force of habit because some compilers issue a warning when a bitwise
operator is used in a context expecting a logical result.
--
http://www.berndporr.me.uk
http://www.linux-usb-daq.co.uk
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3293421/
+44 (0)7840 340069
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
