On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 03:14:02PM -0700, Moore, Robert 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; > > > 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?
IMHO there's another reason to do this which is much more relevant: it tells the reader that whoever wrote it knows that it returns a value and ignores it on purpose. Cheers, Muli - 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