On Thu, 2020-09-24 at 22:19 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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? Treewide? Somebody no doubt would complain, but there _really should_ be some mechanism for these trivial and correct treewide changes...
