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.
actually, I was trying to figure out why software rfkill overrides
hardware rfkill when the card is not inbuilt with the laptop. have not
tested with all the cards.
i have tested with ath9k and another one, where i can simply unblock
with software unblock command even though the card is hardblocked. this
does not seems to be the case when the card is inbuilt(i tested with in
an inbuilt iwlagn in lenovo, it works properly). not sure its driver
bug, i need to verify ath9k card that comes inbuilt with the laptop. if
you have any thoughts please let me know. i dont have the complete
understanding of rfkill. thought of doing more ground work before
asking. thanks.
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
