On 6/14/25 17:41, Feng Shuo wrote: > [You don't often get email from steve.shuo.feng@xxxxxxxxx. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > Fix the expression of the io_uring flag processing. > > Signed-off-by: Feng Shuo <steve.shuo.feng@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > fs/fuse/inode.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/inode.c b/fs/fuse/inode.c > index bfe8d8af46f3..ef0ab9a6893c 100644 > --- a/fs/fuse/inode.c > +++ b/fs/fuse/inode.c > @@ -1434,7 +1434,7 @@ static void process_init_reply(struct fuse_mount *fm, struct fuse_args *args, > else > ok = false; > } > - if (flags & FUSE_OVER_IO_URING && fuse_uring_enabled()) > + if ((flags & FUSE_OVER_IO_URING) && fuse_uring_enabled()) > fc->io_uring = 1; > > if (flags & FUSE_REQUEST_TIMEOUT) > -- > 2.43.0 Hi Shuo, I don't think it is a 'fix', because the '&' operatpr has higher precedence, for readability you are definitely right. Maybe something like fuse: Add parentheses around bitwise operation in conditional Add parentheses around the bitwise AND operation in the io_uring condition check for better readability. With an updated commit message/subject: Reviewed-by: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> Thanks, Bernd
