is using while(1) more error prone than for(;;) no but for(;;) is the default

switch statements that fall though need // -lint fallthough to let lint know you meant it. The code is correct.
The warning or adding the fallthough is great since it means you had to verify it is correct.

LINT wants switch statements to have a default. even if it empty to prove to LINT you though about it. but the code it correct.

If a function has a return value that you do not use you must cast it void. Again to show LINT you know it returns something and are ignoring it on purpose.

If you follow LINTs rules your code will be less error prone. And that means less bugs. But some warnings are just warnings. As in this could be wrong, look at it and see.
To me some are pure style, and these have been done to the Nth degree in many internet forums and ANSI committees. So I will pass them here.