[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090814.164123.36875657.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: roel.kluin@...il.com, romieu@...zoreil.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] WAN: bit and/or confusion
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:36:44 -0700
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:51:46 +0200
> Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> @@ -663,9 +663,9 @@ static inline void dscc4_rx_skb(struct dscc4_dev_priv *dpriv,
>> } else {
>> if (skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameRdo)
>> dev->stats.rx_fifo_errors++;
>> - else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] | ~FrameCrc))
>> + else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & ~FrameCrc))
>> dev->stats.rx_crc_errors++;
>
> that's
>
> if (!(x & 0xffffffdf))
>
> which seems peculiar. Should it have been
>
> else if (skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameCrc)
>
> or
>
> else if (!(skb->data[pkt_len] & FrameCrc))
Indeed, I can't tell which variant would be correct.
I'm reverting until someone with a datasheet for this chip speaks up
:-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists