On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> READ is zero so this test is always false. (rw == READ) was intended.
Actually, that really *is* a bitmask, but yeah, the test is wrong.
The correct test is
((rw & RW_MASK) == READ)
because the field can have other bits set too (REQ_SYNC or REQ_META or
whatever - read-ahead, other bits)
Alternatively, just "!(rw & WRITE)" I guess.
But thanks for noticing.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
