[Home]

Summary:DAHLIN-00106: [patch] Typing error fo kewlstart.
Reporter:krisv (krisv)Labels:
Date Opened:2009-05-22 05:02:50Date Closed:2009-08-21 10:43:12
Priority:MinorRegression?No
Status:Closed/CompleteComponents:dahdi (the module)
Versions:2.1.0.4 Frequency of
Occurrence
Related
Issues:
Environment:Attachments:( 0) abit_bbit.diff
Description:Dahdi 2.1.0.4:
dahdi_base.c/static int dahdi_q_sig(struct dahdi_chan *chan)
static const unsigned int in_sig[NUM_SIGS][2] = {
{ DAHDI_SIG_NONE,  0 },
{ DAHDI_SIG_EM,    (DAHDI_ABIT << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXSLS, DAHDI_BBIT | (DAHDI_BBIT << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXSGS, DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT) << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXSKS, DAHDI_BBIT | DAHDI_BBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT) << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXOLS, (DAHDI_ABIT << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXOGS, DAHDI_BBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT) << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_FXOKS, (DAHDI_ABIT << 8) },
{ DAHDI_SIG_SF,    0 },
{ DAHDI_SIG_EM_E1, DAHDI_DBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_DBIT) << 8) },
};

1) Maybe { DAHDI_SIG_FXSKS, DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT) << 8) },
 instead of { DAHDI_SIG_FXSKS, DAHDI_BBIT | DAHDI_BBIT | ((DAHDI_ABIT | DAHDI_BBIT) << 8) },
Comments:By: Tzafrir Cohen (tzafrir) 2009-05-23 11:27:47

Looks like a typo indeed, but I'm not familiar with this code so I'll live it for a while.
By: Tzafrir Cohen (tzafrir) 2009-05-27 10:05:17

Looks like a typo but it has been in the code since r40 in 2001. Any chance it actually serves some hidden purpose?
By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2009-08-21 10:43:11

Repository: dahdi
Revision: 7057

U   linux/trunk/drivers/dahdi/dahdi-base.c

------------------------------------------------------------------------
r7057 | qwell | 2009-08-21 10:43:10 -0500 (Fri, 21 Aug 2009) | 11 lines

Remove duplicate-ish code that has existed since r40 (committed 8 years ago).

After a long discussion, it was decided that this was the best action since
there was no apparent issue caused by it.  The alternative suggestion was to
change the extra BBIT to an ABIT as FXSLS uses.  Because of the nature of
this code, it was deemed to be a bit (you see what I did there?) too risky.
Who would've expected such a small change to be so complex?

(closes issue DAHLIN-106)
Reported by: KrisV

------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://svn.digium.com/view/dahdi?view=rev&revision=7057