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
