On Thu, 24 Sep 2020, 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? > > And of course that script really wants to be part of the kernel cocci > checks to catch further instances. I will try to get to it soon. Thanks for checking all the cases. julia > > Thanks, > > tglx > _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
