[PATCH] Revert "platform/x86/toshiba-apci.c possible bad if test?"

[PATCH] Revert "platform/x86/toshiba-apci.c possible bad if test?"

[Ari Sundholm]

From: Ari Sundholm <ari@tuxera.com>

This reverts commit bdc3ae7221213963f438faeaa69c8b4a2195f491.

Signed-off-by: Ari Sundholm <ari@tuxera.com>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
index e4da61b..b062d3d 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/toshiba_acpi.c
@@ -1258,7 +1258,7 @@ static ssize_t toshiba_kbd_bl_mode_store(struct device *dev,
 	int mode = -1;
 	int time = -1;
 
-	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &mode) != 1  || (mode != 2 || mode != 1))
+	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &mode) != 1 && (mode != 2 || mode != 1))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* Set the Keyboard Backlight Mode where:
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH] Revert "platform/x86/toshiba-apci.c possible bad if test?"

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 493 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 20:03:26 +0300, Ari Sundholm said:
> From: Ari Sundholm <ari@tuxera.com>
>
> This reverts commit bdc3ae7221213963f438faeaa69c8b4a2195f491.

> +	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &mode) != 1 && (mode != 2 || mode != 1))
>  		return -EINVAL;

I'm not convinced that's right either.  If we come in and mode == 1, then
the mode != 2 is true, and yoinks...

I think this wanted to be   sscanf() != 1 || ! (mode == 2 || mode == 1)

I'll spin a patch against the reverted version if desired.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 848 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] Revert "platform/x86/toshiba-apci.c possible bad if test?"

[Ari Sundholm]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014, Ari Sundholm wrote:

> -	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &mode) != 1  || (mode != 2 || mode != 1))
> +	if (sscanf(buf, "%i", &mode) != 1 && (mode != 2 || mode != 1))
>  		return -EINVAL;

Note that the condition still looks wrong even after the revert, as
(mode != 2 || mode != 1) is always true. Anybody guess what the actual 
intent was?

Best regards,
Ari Sundholm
asundhol@cs.hut.fi