On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:28:15PM +0100, Jakob Koschel wrote: > > > > On 1. Mar 2022, at 01:41, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jakob Koschel <jakobkoschel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be great. > > > > Yes, so I don't mind having a one-time patch that has been gathered > > using some automated checker tool, but I don't think that works from a > > long-term maintenance perspective. > > > > So if we have the basic rule being "don't use the loop iterator after > > the loop has finished, because it can cause all kinds of subtle > > issues", then in _addition_ to fixing the existing code paths that > > have this issue, I really would want to (a) get a compiler warning for > > future cases and (b) make it not actually _work_ for future cases. > > > > Because otherwise it will just happen again. > > > >> Changing the list_for_each_entry() macro first will break all of those cases > >> (e.g. the ones using 'list_entry_is_head()). > > > > So I have no problems with breaking cases that we basically already > > have a patch for due to your automated tool. There were certainly > > more than a handful, but it didn't look _too_ bad to just make the > > rule be "don't use the iterator after the loop". > > > > Of course, that's just based on that patch of yours. Maybe there are a > > ton of other cases that your patch didn't change, because they didn't > > match your trigger case, so I may just be overly optimistic here. > > Based on the coccinelle script there are ~480 cases that need fixing > in total. I'll now finish all of them and then split them by > submodules as Greg suggested and repost a patch set per submodule. > Sounds good? Sounds good to me! If you need help carving these up and maintaining them over time as different subsystem maintainers accept/ignore them, just let me know. Doing large patchsets like this can be tough without a lot of experience. thanks, greg k-h
