[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100302125003.f7919c53.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 12:50:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: 정재훈 <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Alan Jenkins <alan-jenkins@...fmail.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rfkill bug fixed in rfkill_set_sw_state
Suitable cc's (from scripts/get_maintainer.pl) added.
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:55:31 +0900
_________ <jh80.chung@...sung.com> wrote:
> Don___t work expected operation in __rfkill_set_sw_state.
> when rfkill initialized. Rfkill___s blocked & unblocked is operating on the
> contrary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
>
> ---
> net/rfkill/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/rfkill/core.c b/net/rfkill/core.c
> index c224cb2..dcc2d38 100644
> --- a/net/rfkill/core.c
> +++ b/net/rfkill/core.c
> @@ -488,7 +488,7 @@ static void __rfkill_set_sw_state(struct rfkill
> *rfkill, bool blocked)
> if (rfkill->state & RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_SETCALL)
> bit = RFKILL_BLOCK_SW_PREV;
>
> - if (blocked)
> + if (!blocked)
> rfkill->state |= bit;
> else
> rfkill->state &= ~bit;
Are you sure? What problems were you observing with the existing code?
Please fully describe your hardware and the driver's behaviour.
The current code _looks_ OK to me. If bool `blocked' is true, we set
the RFKILL_BLOCK_SW bit?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists