From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roel Kluin Subject: [PATCH] x25: bit and/or confusion in x25_ioctl()? Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:59:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4ACC749E.4060806@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-x25@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Andrew Morton Return-path: Sender: linux-x25-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Looking at commit ebc3f64b864f it appears that this was intended and not the original, equivalent to `if (facilities.reverse & ~0x81)'. In x25_parse_facilities() that patch changed how facilities->reverse was set. No other bits were set than 0x80 and/or 0x01. Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin --- This is correct isn't it? diff --git a/net/x25/af_x25.c b/net/x25/af_x25.c index 7fa9c7a..ca4dc28 100644 --- a/net/x25/af_x25.c +++ b/net/x25/af_x25.c @@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg) facilities.throughput > 0xDD) break; if (facilities.reverse && - (facilities.reverse | 0x81)!= 0x81) + (facilities.reverse & 0x81) != 0x81) break; x25->facilities = facilities; rc = 0;