On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:14:02 -0700
"Moore, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you're discussing this type of thing, I agree wholeheartedly:
>
> static void acpi_processor_notify(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void
> *data) {
> - struct acpi_processor *pr = (struct acpi_processor *)data;
> + struct acpi_processor *pr = data;
>
OK, thanks. I would expect all compilers to be happy with that. However a
bit of googling I did indicated that lint (or some flavour thereof)
complains about the missing cast. Which is dumb of it.
> I find this one interesting, as we've put a number of them into the
> ACPICA core:
>
> - (void) kmem_cache_destroy(cache);
> + kmem_cache_destroy(cache);
>
> I believe that the point of the (void) is to prevent lint from
> squawking, and perhaps some picky ANSI-C compilers. What is the overall
> Linux policy on this?
policy = not;
But there's quite a lot of it in the tree.
Actually.. kmem_cache_destroy() returns void, so any checker which complains
about the missing cast needs a stern talking to.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
