From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cast removal Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:26:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20061005152608.b6a7fb27.akpm@osdl.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:2233 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932377AbWJEW04 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:26:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Moore, Robert" Cc: Jan Engelhardt , Len Brown , "Brown, Len" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI List On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:14:02 -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; > 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.