On 28. Feb 2022, at 21:10, Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:03 PM Linus Torvalds
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

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) pos

in 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