On Sat, Aug 22 2020 at 09:07, Julia Lawall wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2020, Joe Perches wrote:
>> True enough for a general statement, though the coccinelle
>> script Julia provided does not change a single instance of
>> for loop expressions with commas.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, no logic defect is introduced by the
>> script at all.
>
> The script has a rule to ensure that what is changed is part of a top
> level statement that has the form e1, e2;. I put that in to avoid
> transforming cases where the comma is the body of a macro, but it protects
> against for loop headers as well.
Right. I went through the lot and did not find something dodgy. Except
for two hunks this still applies. Can someone please send a proper patch
with changelog/SOB etc. for this?
And of course that script really wants to be part of the kernel cocci
checks to catch further instances.
Thanks,
tglx
