>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?
Back when I started on Linux I was told that (void) foo()
was just extra characters and somehow made the code "hard to read"
and was thus not the "Linux way".
I think I did it because in a previous life kernel code needed to be
lint-free
to get checked in, and lint complained about return values getting
ignored.
I happen to agree with lint because I think it uncovers real bugs -- in
this case ignored error return values -- something that is rarely tested
at run-time until you need it:-) But I have no interest in a style
debate.
I expect the custom will get changed when Linus decides that it is
useful, and not before.
-Len
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
