* [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
@ 2009-02-15 16:37 Roel Kluin
2009-02-15 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 17:05 ` Larry Finger
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Roel Kluin @ 2009-02-15 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: stefano.brivio; +Cc: linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
I think below is what was intended? otherwise we could as well have written:
b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
(b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
|| (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
^^--- Note: boolean or
please review.
-------------------------->8------------------8<---------------------------
Fix misplaced parentheses
Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
---
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
index 6a18a14..88ed75f 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
@@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ struct b43_lo_calib * b43_calibrate_lo_setting(struct b43_wldev *dev,
| rfatt->att);
b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
(b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
- | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
+ | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
max_rx_gain = rfatt->att * 2;
max_rx_gain += bbatt->att / 2;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
2009-02-15 16:37 [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses? Roel Kluin
@ 2009-02-15 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 16:59 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 17:05 ` Larry Finger
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Buesch @ 2009-02-15 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roel Kluin; +Cc: stefano.brivio, linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
On Sunday 15 February 2009 17:37:59 Roel Kluin wrote:
> I think below is what was intended? otherwise we could as well have written:
>
> b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
> (b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
> || (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
>
> ^^--- Note: boolean or
Uhm, no?
Can you please explain why you think this is equal? Does | have precedence over ?:
>
> please review.
> -------------------------->8------------------8<---------------------------
> Fix misplaced parentheses
>
> Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> index 6a18a14..88ed75f 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ struct b43_lo_calib * b43_calibrate_lo_setting(struct b43_wldev *dev,
> | rfatt->att);
> b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
> (b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
> - | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
> + | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
>
> max_rx_gain = rfatt->att * 2;
> max_rx_gain += bbatt->att / 2;
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
--
Greetings, Michael.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
2009-02-15 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
@ 2009-02-15 16:59 ` Michael Buesch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Buesch @ 2009-02-15 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roel Kluin; +Cc: stefano.brivio, linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
On Sunday 15 February 2009 17:46:44 Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2009 17:37:59 Roel Kluin wrote:
> > I think below is what was intended? otherwise we could as well have written:
> >
> > b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
> > (b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
> > || (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
> >
> > ^^--- Note: boolean or
>
> Uhm, no?
> Can you please explain why you think this is equal? Does | have precedence over ?:
Hm, | does indeed seem to have precedence over ?:. So, while I still don't understand
why you think || would be equal to the current code, but expanding the paren throughout
the whole ?: expression seems to be required.
Note that the paren was intentionally placed like this under the assumption that ?:
has precedence over |. Which seems to be wrong.
>
> >
> > please review.
> > -------------------------->8------------------8<---------------------------
> > Fix misplaced parentheses
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> > index 6a18a14..88ed75f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/lo.c
> > @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ struct b43_lo_calib * b43_calibrate_lo_setting(struct b43_wldev *dev,
> > | rfatt->att);
> > b43_radio_write16(dev, txctl_reg,
> > (b43_radio_read16(dev, txctl_reg) & ~txctl_value)
> > - | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
> > + | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
> >
> > max_rx_gain = rfatt->att * 2;
> > max_rx_gain += bbatt->att / 2;
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Greetings, Michael.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
2009-02-15 16:37 [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses? Roel Kluin
2009-02-15 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
@ 2009-02-15 17:05 ` Larry Finger
2009-02-15 17:07 ` Michael Buesch
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2009-02-15 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roel Kluin; +Cc: stefano.brivio, linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
Roel Kluin wrote:
> - | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
> + | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
As I see it, the difference between the above two lines is the same as the
difference between c and d in this program:
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int a = 1, b = 2, c, d;
c = (a) ? b : 0;
d = (a ? b : 0);
fprintf (stderr, "a, b, c, d: %d %d %d %d\n", a, b, c, d);
return 1;
}
When this program is executed, the output line is
a, b, c, d: 1 2 2 2
which is what I expected. Thus "(condition) ? result1 : result2" is the same as
"(condition ? result1 : result2)".
Larry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
2009-02-15 17:05 ` Larry Finger
@ 2009-02-15 17:07 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 17:09 ` Larry Finger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Buesch @ 2009-02-15 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry Finger; +Cc: Roel Kluin, stefano.brivio, linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
On Sunday 15 February 2009 18:05:52 Larry Finger wrote:
> Roel Kluin wrote:
> > - | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
> > + | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
>
> As I see it, the difference between the above two lines is the same as the
> difference between c and d in this program:
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> int a = 1, b = 2, c, d;
>
> c = (a) ? b : 0;
> d = (a ? b : 0);
> fprintf (stderr, "a, b, c, d: %d %d %d %d\n", a, b, c, d);
> return 1;
> }
>
> When this program is executed, the output line is
>
> a, b, c, d: 1 2 2 2
>
> which is what I expected. Thus "(condition) ? result1 : result2" is the same as
> "(condition ? result1 : result2)".
The problem is the binary OR operator, which has precedence over the ?: operator.
--
Greetings, Michael.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses?
2009-02-15 17:07 ` Michael Buesch
@ 2009-02-15 17:09 ` Larry Finger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Larry Finger @ 2009-02-15 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Buesch; +Cc: Roel Kluin, stefano.brivio, linux-wireless, Andrew Morton
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 15 February 2009 18:05:52 Larry Finger wrote:
>> Roel Kluin wrote:
>>> - | (rfatt->with_padmix) ? txctl_value : 0);
>>> + | (rfatt->with_padmix ? txctl_value : 0));
>> As I see it, the difference between the above two lines is the same as the
>> difference between c and d in this program:
>>
>> int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> int a = 1, b = 2, c, d;
>>
>> c = (a) ? b : 0;
>> d = (a ? b : 0);
>> fprintf (stderr, "a, b, c, d: %d %d %d %d\n", a, b, c, d);
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> When this program is executed, the output line is
>>
>> a, b, c, d: 1 2 2 2
>>
>> which is what I expected. Thus "(condition) ? result1 : result2" is the same as
>> "(condition ? result1 : result2)".
>
> The problem is the binary OR operator, which has precedence over the ?: operator.
I see. Please ignore my noise.
Larry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-02-15 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-02-15 16:37 [PATCH] B43: misplaced parentheses? Roel Kluin
2009-02-15 16:46 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 16:59 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 17:05 ` Larry Finger
2009-02-15 17:07 ` Michael Buesch
2009-02-15 17:09 ` Larry Finger
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).