Hi Dirk,
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11.05.2016 09:54, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 7:29 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/misc/boot-mode-reg/core.c
>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * boot_mode_reg_set() - record boot mode register value
>>> + * @mode: implementation-dependent boot mode register value
>>> + *
>>> + * Records the boot mode register value which may subsequently
>>> + * be retrieved using boot_mode_reg_get().
>>> + *
>>> + * return: 0 on success
>>> + */
>>> +int boot_mode_reg_set(u32 mode)
>>> +{
>>> + int err = -EBUSY;
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&boot_mode_mutex);
>>> + if (!boot_mode_is_set) {
>>
>> You've dropped the check for calling this function a subsequent time with
>> a different value of mode?
>
> Sometimes inverting 'complex' if statements is not that easy ;)
>
> You mean
>
> if (!boot_mode_is_set || boot_mode != mode)
No, De Morgan says
if (!boot_mode_is_set || boot_mode == mode)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
