From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: Sampsa Ranta <sampsa@netsonic.fi>,
Alan Cox <laughing@shared-source.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.7-ac9 (breaks ATM connect)
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:52:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B72F821.36E0B18C@nortelnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108092210260.31580-100000@nalle.netsonic.fi> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0108092225440.31580-100000@nalle.netsonic.fi> <15218.62166.839967.47354@pizda.ninka.net>
"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Sampsa Ranta writes:
> > Pardon me, bugs come in too easy..
> >
> > - vci != ATM_VCI_ANY && vci >> dev->ci_range.vci_bits))
> > + vci != ATM_VCI_ANY && vci >= 1 << dev->ci_range.vci_bits))
> >
>
> This is rediculious, why has this expression changed when right
> above it is the same thing:
>
> vpi >> dev->ci_range.vpi_bits) || (vci != ATM_VCI_UNSPEC &&
>
> Shouldn't we be changing that "vpi >> dev->ci_range.vpi_bits" boolean
> test as well?
Am I missing something? As long as vci is unsigned isn't (vci >>
dev->ci_range.vci_bits) as a boolean value exactly the same thing as (vci >= 1
<< dev->ci_range.vci_bits) ?
As an example, take vci = 10001b and dev->ci_range.vci_bits = 4. The answer
works out the same either way.
Chris
--
Chris Friesen | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue | fax: (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-09 20:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-07 22:53 Linux 2.4.7-ac9 Alan Cox
2001-08-08 1:55 ` Rik van Riel
2001-08-08 3:32 ` Josh McKinney
2001-08-09 19:24 ` Linux 2.4.7-ac9 (breaks ATM connect) Sampsa Ranta
2001-08-09 19:27 ` Sampsa Ranta
2001-08-09 20:30 ` David S. Miller
2001-08-09 20:52 ` Chris Friesen [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-08-09 21:32 Petr Vandrovec
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3B72F821.36E0B18C@nortelnetworks.com \
--to=cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=laughing@shared-source.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sampsa@netsonic.fi \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox