On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 14:12 +0200, Michal Kazior wrote:
> >> >> + if (!(old_ctx->replaced_by && new_ctx->replaces)) {
> >> >
> >> > Isn't !old->ctx->replaced_by enough here? Do you really care if the
> >> > new_ctx will replace something else at this point?
> >>
> >> Hmm..
> >>
> >> Now that I think this should actually be just:
> >>
> >> if (!new_ctx->replaces) { ... }
> >
> > Oh ... I think that's what I asked above. Nah. This check actually means
> > that it *is* possible that replaced_by and replaces are true at the same
> > time? *confused*
>
> If you refer to the original condition do note the *old_ctx* and *new_ctx*.
>
> As I stated above for a single channel context both `replaces` and
> `replaced_by` shouldn't be set at the same time.
Ah, right, I did mix that up, thanks for the clarification.
johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
