On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 02:56:26PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Switch sysfs parsing to something that actually works properly.
> @@ -402,7 +410,7 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_claim_store(struct device *dev,
> if (error)
> return error;
>
> - if (rfkill->user_claim != claim) {
> + if (!!rfkill->user_claim != !!claim) {
> if (!claim) {
> mutex_lock(&rfkill->mutex);
> rfkill_toggle_radio(rfkill,
This looks a bit funny. Is the '!!' in front of 'rfkill->user_claim'
really necessary? Especially since...
> @@ -410,7 +418,7 @@ static ssize_t rfkill_claim_store(struct device *dev,
> 0);
> mutex_unlock(&rfkill->mutex);
> }
> - rfkill->user_claim = claim;
> + rfkill->user_claim = !!claim;
> }
>
> mutex_unlock(&rfkill_mutex);
You seem to be doing the only assignment to 'rfkill->user_claim',
using a '!!' to condition the input?
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
