On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> The only reason why the sysfs creation would fail is a kernel bug,
> so the consequence of your proposal is in fact unfixed kernel bugs.
Well, the thing is, I suspect we have created way more bugs by having that
stupid "you must check the return value even if you don't care", than by
just letting it go.
> Now, we can talk about making those sysfs core functions generate warnings
> themselves, and we can talk about generating new wrappers around them which
> generate warnings and which return void, then migrating code over to use
> those.
If the only valid reason to fail is a kernel bug, it damn well should be
that sysfs function itself that should complain. It's the only thing that
knows and cares.
> And we can also talk about blithely ignoring these errors and not telling
> anyone about our bugs, but nobody should listen to such scandalous ideas.
Here's a question: do you always check the return value of "printf()"?
Nobody does. It's not worth it. Trying to do so just creates messy code,
and MORE BUGS.
So yes, I think we should ignore return values when they have absolutely
zero interest level to us.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
