From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] INET: fix incorrect "inet_sock->is_icsk" assignment Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:47:29 -0500 Message-ID: <200701080947.29270.paul.moore@hp.com> References: <20070108132548.GA2324@ff.dom.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from atlrel8.hp.com ([156.153.255.206]:41810 "EHLO atlrel8.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751564AbXAHOrf (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:47:35 -0500 To: Jarek Poplawski In-Reply-To: <20070108132548.GA2324@ff.dom.local> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Monday, January 8 2007 8:25 am, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > On 04-01-2007 21:04, Paul Moore wrote: > > +++ net-2.6.20_bugfix_2/net/ipv4/af_inet.c > > @@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ lookup_protocol: > > sk->sk_reuse = 1; > > > > inet = inet_sk(sk); > > - inet->is_icsk = INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & answer_flags; > > + inet->is_icsk = (INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & answer_flags) == > > INET_PROTOSW_ICSK; > > Isn't this more readable like this?: > > inet->is_icsk = (INET_PROTOSW_ICSK & answer_flags) != 0; I guess it all depends on who is reading it ;) Personally, I don't care too much either way as long as it is fixed. -- paul moore linux security @ hp