On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > On 09/15/2015 03:31 PM, Julia Lawall wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > > >>>> v@p > >>>> ( > >>>> *< 0 > >>>> | > >>>> *<= 0 > >>>> ) > >>> It does not, and is not intended to, work. The branches of a disjunction > >>> should be complete expressions. > >> Will the following SmPL approach be more appropriate then? > >> > >> ( > >> *v@p < 0 > >> | > >> *v@p <= 0 > >> ) > > Actually, all of > > > > v < 0 (never true) > > v <= 0 (same as v == 0) > > v >= 0 (always true) > > > > would seem to merit attention. Andrzej, what do you think? > > You are right, the 2nd case should be also addressed, > such code is misleading. > I will prepare then 2nd version of the patch. It could be reasonable to change the options to --all-includes? Although it could be somewhat slow. julia > > Regards > Andrzej > > > > > julia > > > > > >> Regards, > >> Markus > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
