On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:11:00AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 27-06-2012 06:06, Dan Carpenter escreveu:
> > The intent here was to test that the flag was clear but the '!' has
> > higher precedence than the '&'. I2C_M_RD is 0x1 so the current code is
> > equivalent to "&& (!sgs[i].fl
Em 27-06-2012 06:06, Dan Carpenter escreveu:
> The intent here was to test that the flag was clear but the '!' has
> higher precedence than the '&'. I2C_M_RD is 0x1 so the current code is
> equivalent to "&& (!sgs[i].flags) ..."
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
> ---
> I sent this originally on
The intent here was to test that the flag was clear but the '!' has
higher precedence than the '&'. I2C_M_RD is 0x1 so the current code is
equivalent to "&& (!sgs[i].flags) ..."
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter
---
I sent this originally on Wed, 25 Jan 2012 and Emil Goode sent the same
fix on Thu, M
