Thank you Bernd. I will send a new patch. -- Feng Shuo On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 5:45 AM Bernd Schubert <bschubert@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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
