Garrett D'Amore 写道: > I think Jim already addressed this, which is basically that this > becomes a matter of personal taste to a certain extent. (Meaning > /*LINTED*/ versus (void *).) Good re-cast and I agree that is a personal taste issue. > > One rationale for using (void *) is that it mirrors our use of the > source pointer in these cases -- that is, we are using the source > pointer as an untyped pointer (e.g. mp->b_rptr), so it makes sense to > use an untyped cast ... i.e. void *. It does have the possibility > that it obfuscates the type of the destination pointer, but I think > good programming practice is that you use names such that the type is > more or less obvious -- though I'm *NOT* advocating Hungarian notation. Thanks and Amen to the last comment.. > > Anyway, are you happy with the other changes, and can I list you as a > reviewer on the RTI? I want to submit this RTI as soon as possible, > as my advocate has requested this be submitted asap as he wants to > avoid introducing further lint breakage in another putback he's > working on. :-) My pleasure. > > -- Garrett > > Tzongyu Paul Lee wrote: >> >> >> James Carlson 写道: >>> Garrett D'Amore writes: >>> >>>> James Carlson wrote: >>>> >>>>> Garrett D'Amore writes: >>>>> >>>>>> There is a closed version, which includes one closed file fix, at >>>>>> >>>>>> http://jurassic.sfbay/~gd78059/webrev/mblkl >>>>>> >>> >>> "OK" on all the responses. >>> >> I am uncomfortable with some of the (void *) changes, for example, >> closed/uts/common/io/ib/clients/sdpib/sdp_link.c >> >> from >> 102 /* LINTED */ >> 103 ipllc = (ipllc_t *)mp->b_rptr; >> 104 ipllc->ipllc_cmd = IP_IOC_RTS_REQUEST; >> >> to >> >> 102 ipllc = (void *)mp->b_rptr; >> >> 103 ipllc->ipllc_cmd = IP_IOC_RTS_REQUEST; >> >> Although (void *) makes lint happy, this change >> greatly dilutes the clarity of a structure pointer which >> gets used immediately to access member fields in that structure. >> I feel that we are bending too much to please the lint checker. >>> >>>>> uts/intel/pcwl/Makefile >>>>> >>>>> 75: remove >>>>> >>>> Huh? You better clarify that one for me. >>>> >>> >>> Instead of actually removing the now-unused LINTTAGS += entry in this >>> one Makefile, you just commented it out. I think it'd be better to >>> remove the line. If anyone really needs it in the future, they'll >>> have to come up with the recipe on their own. >>> >>> >> >
-- Tzongyu Paul Lee, [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] BJS05 7225, x84343 http://blogs.sun.com/tpaullee/ Feel the Pulses of China http://tpaullee.blogspot.com/ - use google reader in China _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
