From b9d43369609303fc935e31ba1b01e3ac621f64a3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Earl Brassow Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:31:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] fix bad 'strcmp's in 'decode_lock_type' - missing !'s There was no effect from having this wrong yet, because the tree of callers only ever cared about the answer to the first condition (!response), which determines whether a lock is held or not. Correct responses, however, are needed soon. --- lib/locking/cluster_locking.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/locking/cluster_locking.c b/lib/locking/cluster_locking.c index d8f7de272..83b1cd20d 100644 --- a/lib/locking/cluster_locking.c +++ b/lib/locking/cluster_locking.c @@ -490,11 +490,11 @@ static int decode_lock_type(const char *response) { if (!response) return LCK_NULL; - else if (strcmp(response, "EX")) + else if (!strcmp(response, "EX")) return LCK_EXCL; - else if (strcmp(response, "CR")) + else if (!strcmp(response, "CR")) return LCK_READ; - else if (strcmp(response, "PR")) + else if (!strcmp(response, "PR")) return LCK_PREAD; stack; @@ -532,8 +532,8 @@ int query_resource(const char *resource, int *mode) /* * All nodes should use CR, or exactly one node - * should held EX. (PR is obsolete) - * If two nodes node reports different locks, + * should hold EX. (PR is obsolete) + * If two nodes report different locks, * something is broken - just return more important mode. */ if (decode_lock_type(response[i].response) > *mode) -- 2.43.5