On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:32 +0530, mohammed wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2011 07:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:23 +0530, mohammed wrote: > > > >>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static bool __rfkill_set_hw_state(struct rfkill *rfkill, > >>>> else > >>>> rfkill->state&= ~RFKILL_BLOCK_HW; > >>>> *change = prev != blocked; > >>>> - any = rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_ANY; > >>>> + any = !!(rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_ANY); > >>> > >>> I believe this is not necessary since "any" is a "bool" and as such > >>> should cast correctly to 0/1. > > > >> I agree the older one works perfectly fine. I stumbled upon this when i > >> was trying to understand rfkill. but will not this change make it look > >> better ? if it looks like a too trivial please drop it. Thanks! > > > > Sure, whatever, I don't care; we can change it, but I think it'll > > generate exactly the same code :) > > oh ok, thanks. Sure. I just wanted to clarify that it was to make the coder nicer, not to fix a bug or so. 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
