Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 30/08/2007, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesper Juhl wrote:
Since kmalloc() returns a void pointer there is no reason to cast
its return value.
This patch also removes a pointless initialization of a variable.
NAK: adds a sparse warning
Jesper Juhl wrote:
Since kmalloc() returns a void pointer there is no reason to cast
its return value.
This patch also removes a pointless initialization of a variable.
NAK: adds a sparse warning
zd_chip.c:116:15: warning: implicit cast to nocast type
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl [EMAIL
On 30/08/2007, Daniel Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesper Juhl wrote:
Since kmalloc() returns a void pointer there is no reason to cast
its return value.
This patch also removes a pointless initialization of a variable.
NAK: adds a sparse warning
zd_chip.c:116:15: warning: implicit
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 22:20 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
Ok, I must admit I didn't check with sparse since it seemed pointless
- we usually never cast void pointers to other pointer types,
specifically because the C language nicely guarantees that the right
thing will happen without the cast.
On Friday 31 August 2007 00:19:53 Joe Perches wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 22:20 +0200, Jesper Juhl wrote:
Ok, I must admit I didn't check with sparse since it seemed pointless
- we usually never cast void pointers to other pointer types,
specifically because the C language nicely
On 31/08/2007, Randy Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
BTW: http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118831813500769w=2
...
Heh, thanks Randy.
All too often patches get missed since I don't happen to include the
right magic person to Cc. So I generally take a better to have one Cc
too many than
Jesper Juhl wrote:
What would be wrong in applying my patch that removes the cast of the
kmalloc() return value and then also remove the __nocast here?
We use it as a safety measure when coding. For example the write
register function takes an address and a value. We got one of these the
