Re: hlist_for_each_entry && pos (Was: task_work_queue)

[Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>]

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 09:39:29PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> The sad part is that if we allow that, we also get that *other* insane
> C99 variable thing - mixing variables and code.
> 
> I *like* getting warnings for confused people who start introducing
> variables in the middle of blocks of code. That's not well-contained
> like the loop variable.
> 
> That said, most of the stuff in C99 are extensions that we used long
> before C99, so I guess we might as well just add the stupid flag. And
> discourage people from mixing declarations and code other ways (sparse
> etc).

	Yes, but... -std=gnu99 will break one of your pet extensions -
(struct foo){0,1,2} will cease to be accepted in initializers of
static storage duration objects (and -std=c99 will break a *lot* more
than that).  I wouldn't mind going for that (it's not a terribly large
patch, at least it wasn't about a year ago when I've looked at that),
but IIRC you really insisted on using that one...  It mostly boiled
down to things like
-       .lock           = __SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED(init_fs.lock),
+       .lock           = __SPIN_LOCK_INITIALIZER(init_fs.lock),
etc.