Re: [PATCH] Cast removal
- From: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:26:08 -0700
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:14:02 -0700
"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Cast removal
- From: Jan Engelhardt
- Re: [PATCH] Cast removal
- References:
- RE: [PATCH] Cast removal
- From: Moore, Robert
- RE: [PATCH] Cast removal
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] make mach-generic/summit.c compile on UP
- Next by Date: [PATCH 2.6.19-rc1 V9] drivers: add LCD support
- Previous by thread: RE: [PATCH] Cast removal
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Cast removal
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|