On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:14:02 -0700 "Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@xxxxxxxxx> 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. - 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