From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:00:56 +0200 From: Johan Hedberg To: Andrei Emeltchenko , linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: SMP: Fix setting unknown auth_req bits Message-ID: <20121011150056.GA31247@x220.example.org> References: <1349965566-29482-1-git-send-email-johan.hedberg@gmail.com> <20121011143355.GA28051@aemeltch-MOBL1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20121011143355.GA28051@aemeltch-MOBL1> Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Andrei, On Thu, Oct 11, 2012, Andrei Emeltchenko wrote: > > @@ -230,7 +232,7 @@ static void build_pairing_cmd(struct l2cap_conn *conn, > > req->max_key_size = SMP_MAX_ENC_KEY_SIZE; > > req->init_key_dist = 0; > > req->resp_key_dist = dist_keys; > > - req->auth_req = authreq; > > + req->auth_req = (authreq & AUTH_REQ_MASK); > > return; > > } > > > > @@ -239,7 +241,7 @@ static void build_pairing_cmd(struct l2cap_conn *conn, > > rsp->max_key_size = SMP_MAX_ENC_KEY_SIZE; > > rsp->init_key_dist = 0; > > rsp->resp_key_dist = req->resp_key_dist & dist_keys; > > - rsp->auth_req = authreq; > > + rsp->auth_req = (authreq & AUTH_REQ_MASK); > > Would it be better to omit braces like in the line above? For both cases. I actually didn't notice the line above the second chunk. I always thought it was good practice to have explicit braces around bitwise operations to avoid evaluation-order bugs (particularly in if-statements) so I just always do it. I'll leave this to Gustavo or Marcel to object to if necessary (otoh Marcel already gave his ack). Johan