Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762513AbYCEITo (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:19:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756680AbYCEITd (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:19:33 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:55008 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755988AbYCEITc (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 03:19:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:19:05 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Harvey Harrison Cc: Christopher Li , Julia Lawall , yi.zhu@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] drivers/net/wireless/iwlwifi/iwl-4965.c: Correct use of ! and & Message-ID: <20080305081904.GA17789@elte.hu> References: <20080305063842.GA24495@elte.hu> <70318cbf0803042249j57d7f3a3j7666961a9132b10b@mail.gmail.com> <20080305070201.GA32434@elte.hu> <1204700995.17484.7.camel@brick> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204700995.17484.7.camel@brick> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 927 Lines: 27 * Harvey Harrison wrote: > > Al's patch is: > > > > + if (op == '&' && expr->left->type == EXPR_PREOP && > > + expr->left->op == '!') > > + warning(expr->pos, "dubious: !x & y"); > > > > i think there might be similar patterns: "x & !y", "!x | y", "x | !y" ? > > > > Well, (!x & y) and (!x | y) are probably the two that might have been > intended otherwise. (x & !y), (x | !y) are probably ok. i think the proper intention in the latter cases is (x & ~y) and (x | ~y). My strong bet is that in 99% of the cases they are real bugs and && or || was intended. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/