Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

    +    Once we've fully applied "the_repository.pending.cocci" we'll keep
    +    this rules around for a while in "the_repository.cocci", to help any
    +    outstanding topics and out-of-tree code to resolve textual or semantic
    +    conflicts with these changes, but eventually we'll remove the
    +    "the_repository.cocci" as a follow-up.
    +
    +    So even if some of these functions are subsequently moved and/or split
    +    into other or new headers there's no risk of this becoming stale, if
    +    and when that happens the we should be removing these rules anyway.
    +
         Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref]

Are people happy with the result?  I think the previous round was
both read carefully on the central piece of the series, with some
spot checks to mechanical parts, and with the above clarification
the series is ready to be merged down to 'next'.

Likewise, I'm also happy to see this merged to 'next'.

My comments on v1 were sanity-checking how we use coccinelle in this
series, not any actual objection :)