Return-path: Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com ([65.197.215.72]:10934 "EHLO sabertooth01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751104Ab1IPOc0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 10:32:26 -0400 Message-ID: <4E735C83.20105@qca.qualcomm.com> (sfid-20110916_163229_682824_E777594D) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:56:11 +0530 From: mohammed MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Johannes Berg CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill: properly assign a boolean type References: <1316180020-9982-1-git-send-email-mohammed@qca.qualcomm.com> <1316180237.4130.37.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4E7354D8.40507@qca.qualcomm.com> <1316181679.4130.38.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <4E735701.9080609@qca.qualcomm.com> <1316182109.4130.39.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> In-Reply-To: <1316182109.4130.39.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 16 September 2011 07:38 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:32 +0530, mohammed wrote: >> On Friday 16 September 2011 07:31 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:23 +0530, mohammed wrote: >>> >>>>>> @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ static bool __rfkill_set_hw_state(struct rfkill *rfkill, >>>>>> else >>>>>> rfkill->state&= ~RFKILL_BLOCK_HW; >>>>>> *change = prev != blocked; >>>>>> - any = rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_ANY; >>>>>> + any = !!(rfkill->state& RFKILL_BLOCK_ANY); >>>>> >>>>> I believe this is not necessary since "any" is a "bool" and as such >>>>> should cast correctly to 0/1. >>> >>>> I agree the older one works perfectly fine. I stumbled upon this when i >>>> was trying to understand rfkill. but will not this change make it look >>>> better ? if it looks like a too trivial please drop it. Thanks! >>> >>> Sure, whatever, I don't care; we can change it, but I think it'll >>> generate exactly the same code :) >> >> oh ok, thanks. > > Sure. I just wanted to clarify that it was to make the coder nicer, not > to fix a bug or so. actually, I was trying to figure out why software rfkill overrides hardware rfkill when the card is not inbuilt with the laptop. have not tested with all the cards. i have tested with ath9k and another one, where i can simply unblock with software unblock command even though the card is hardblocked. this does not seems to be the case when the card is inbuilt(i tested with in an inbuilt iwlagn in lenovo, it works properly). not sure its driver bug, i need to verify ath9k card that comes inbuilt with the laptop. if you have any thoughts please let me know. i dont have the complete understanding of rfkill. thought of doing more ground work before asking. thanks. > > johannes >