>> I try to stress SmPL functionality in this use case.
>
> That's not the goal of the semantic patches in the kernel.
>
> The rule is fine as it is.
I am curious under which circumstances other software aspects
can become more relevant (as suggested).
Regards,
Markus
On Mon, 13 May 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> >> An assignment target was repeated in four SmPL when constraints.
> >> Combine the exclusion specifications into disjunctions for the semantic
> >> patch language so that this target is referenced only once there.
> >
> > NACK.
>
> I find this
>> An assignment target was repeated in four SmPL when constraints.
>> Combine the exclusion specifications into disjunctions for the semantic
>> patch language so that this target is referenced only once there.
>
> NACK.
I find this rejection questionable.
> This exceeds 80 characters
The
On Mon, 13 May 2019, Markus Elfring wrote:
> From: Markus Elfring
> Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 18:32:46 +0200
>
> An assignment target was repeated in four SmPL when constraints.
> Combine the exclusion specifications into disjunctions for the semantic
> patch language so that this target is
