"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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 21:00:29 EST