On Friday 16 September 2011 07:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
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.
no it does not fixes any bug :) thanks a lot for reviewing.
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
