From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c: logical-bitwise or confusion? Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:16:31 +0100 Message-ID: <47D48BEF.2070103@tiscali.nl> References: <993737.45508.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jschlst@samba.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Gortmaker Return-path: Received: from smtp-out0.tiscali.nl ([195.241.79.175]:57487 "EHLO smtp-out0.tiscali.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752904AbYCJBQk (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:16:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <993737.45508.qm@web65610.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Paul Gortmaker wrote: > --- Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> wrote: > >> drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c:3416 >> >> tsv->svv[0] = ((tx_fstatus & 0x0100 >> 6) || IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR); >> >> shouldn't this be a bit-wise or? >> from drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.h:50: >> >> #define IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR 0x01 > > Probably a safe bet that is what they meant to have. Since > as it stands, gcc will (correctly) optimize that into: > > tsv->svv[0]= 1; > > which probably isn't particularly useful. > > Paul. That was what I was thinking as well. --- logical-bitwise | confusion Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <12o3l@tiscali.nl> --- diff --git a/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c b/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c index 8909050..8ae5837 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c +++ b/drivers/net/tokenring/smctr.c @@ -3413,7 +3413,7 @@ static int smctr_make_tx_status_code(struct net_device *dev, tsv->svi = TRANSMIT_STATUS_CODE; tsv->svl = S_TRANSMIT_STATUS_CODE; - tsv->svv[0] = ((tx_fstatus & 0x0100 >> 6) || IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR); + tsv->svv[0] = ((tx_fstatus & 0x0100 >> 6) | IBM_PASS_SOURCE_ADDR); /* Stripped frame status of Transmitted Frame */ tsv->svv[1] = tx_fstatus & 0xff;