Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933701AbYCEMVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:21:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764825AbYCEMUe (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:20:34 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57240 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762549AbYCEMUc (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Mar 2008 07:20:32 -0500 Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 13:20:10 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Julia Lawall Cc: Christopher Li , yi.zhu@intel.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, ipw3945-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Harvey Harrison , 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: <20080305122010.GA999@elte.hu> References: <20080305063842.GA24495@elte.hu> <70318cbf0803042249j57d7f3a3j7666961a9132b10b@mail.gmail.com> <20080305070201.GA32434@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 1042 Lines: 22 * Julia Lawall wrote: > There are some legitimate uses of !x & y which are actually of the > form !x & !y, where x and y are function calls. That is a not > particularly elegant way of getting both x and y to be evaluated and > then combining the results using "and". If such code is considered > acceptable, then perhaps the sparse patch should be more complicated. i tend to be of the opinion that the details in C source code should be visually obvious and should be heavily simplified down from what is 'possible' language-wise - with most deviations and complications that depart from convention considered an error. I'd consider "!fn1() & !fn2()" a borderline coding style violation in any case - and it costs nothing to change it to "!fn1() && !fn2()". 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/