On Thu, Sep 24 2020 at 13:33, Joe Perches wrote:
> 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...
There are lots of mechanisms:
- Andrew picks such changes up
- With a few competent eyeballs on it (reviewers) this can go thorugh
the trivial tree as well. It's more than obvious after all.
- Send the script to Linus with a proper change log attached and ask
him to run it.
- In the worst case if nobody feels responsible, I'll take care.
All of the above is better than trying to get the attention of a
gazillion of maintainters.
Thanks,
tglx
