x25: bit and/or confusion in x25_ioctl()?

Looking at commit ebc3f64b864f it appears that this was intended
and not the original, equivalent to `if (facilities.reverse & ~0x81)'.

In x25_parse_facilities() that patch changed how facilities->reverse
was set. No other bits were set than 0x80 and/or 0x01.

Signed-off-by: Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

diff --git a/net/x25/af_x25.c b/net/x25/af_x25.c
index ebbfe6bbbff98ddde3f7c4fbb44babb5fd38b11c..e19d811788a548c73e137f600ed2f7c6c258a959 100644 (file)
--- a/net/x25/af_x25.c
+++ b/net/x25/af_x25.c
@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ static int x25_ioctl(struct socket *sock, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
                            facilities.throughput > 0xDD)
                                break;
                        if (facilities.reverse &&
-                               (facilities.reverse | 0x81)!= 0x81)
+                               (facilities.reverse & 0x81) != 0x81)
                                break;
                        x25->facilities = facilities;
                        rc = 0;