linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - using logical instead of bitwise AND

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1458030809.11972.178.camel@perches.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Mar 2016 01:33:29 -0700
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Duggan <aduggan@...aptics.com>
Cc:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>,
	Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - using logical instead of
 bitwise AND

On Tue, 2016-03-15 at 10:11 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There is a typo so we have && instead of &.
> 
> Fixes: ff8f83708b3e ('Input: synaptics-rmi4 - add support for 2D sensors and F11')
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f11.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f11.c
[]
> @@ -775,7 +775,7 @@ static int rmi_f11_get_query_parameters(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev,
>  	sensor_query->has_abs = !!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_ABS);
>  	sensor_query->has_gestures = !!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_GESTURES);
>  	sensor_query->has_sensitivity_adjust =
> -		!!(query_buf[0] && RMI_F11_HAS_SENSITIVITY_ADJ);
> +		!!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_SENSITIVITY_ADJ);
>  	sensor_query->configurable = !!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_CONFIGURABLE);
>  
>  	sensor_query->nr_x_electrodes =
> @@ -803,7 +803,7 @@ static int rmi_f11_get_query_parameters(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev,
>  		sensor_query->has_bending_correction =
>  			!!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_BENDING_CORRECTION);
>  		sensor_query->has_large_object_suppression =
> -		!!(query_buf[0] && RMI_F11_HAS_LARGE_OBJECT_SUPPRESSION);
> +			!!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_LARGE_OBJECT_SUPPRESSION);
>  		sensor_query->has_jitter_filter =
>  			!!(query_buf[0] & RMI_F11_HAS_JITTER_FILTER);
>  		query_size++;

Right and as well these are bool so the !! isn't necessary.