[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061005152608.b6a7fb27.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:26:08 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
Cc: "Jan Engelhardt" <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>, "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ACPI List" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cast removal
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:14:02 -0700
"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com> 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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists