[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190926034344.GA21883@localhost>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 20:43:44 -0700
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Intel Wired LAN <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
Jeffrey Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next v2 1/2] ptp: correctly disable flags on old ioctls
On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 07:28:19PM -0700, Jacob Keller wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> index 9c18476d8d10..67d0199840fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c
> @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ long ptp_ioctl(struct posix_clock *pc, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> err = -EINVAL;
> break;
> } else if (cmd == PTP_EXTTS_REQUEST) {
> - req.extts.flags &= ~PTP_EXTTS_VALID_FLAGS;
> + req.extts.flags &= PTP_EXTTS_V1_VALID_FLAGS;
Duh, the bit wise negation was not the intention. Thanks for catching
this, and introducing the "V1" set of flags makes sense.
@davem Please merge this patch as a bug fix.
Acked-by: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists