On 28. Feb 2022, at 21:10, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:03 PM Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org wrote:
Side note: we do need *some* way to do it.
Ooh.
This patch is a work of art.
And I mean that in the worst possible way.
We can do
typeof(pos) posin the 'for ()' loop, and never use __iter at all.
That means that inside the for-loop, we use a _different_ 'pos' than outside.
And then the compiler will not see some "might be uninitialized", but the outer 'pos' *will* be uninitialized.
Unless, of course, the outer 'pos' had that pointless explicit initializer.
The goal of this is to get compiler warnings right? This would indeed be great.
Changing the list_for_each_entry() macro first will break all of those cases (e.g. the ones using 'list_entry_is_head()). I assumed it is better to fix those cases first and then have a simple coccinelle script changing the macro + moving the iterator into the scope of the macro.
Here - can somebody poke holes in this "work of art" patch?
With this you are no longer able to set the 'outer' pos within the list iterator loop body or am I missing something? Like this it stays uninitialized but you'll probably want to set it from within the loop.
You would then yet again need a variable with another name to use after the loop.
I fail to see how this will make most of the changes in this patch obsolete (if that was the intention).
Linus<patch.diff>
- Jakob