Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:22:21 +0000 | From | Matthew Garrett <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29 |
| |
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 03:08:11PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> Not checking for errors is not "progress" its indiscipline aided by > languages and tools that permit it to occur without issuing errors. It's > why software "engineering" is at best approaching early 1950's real > engineering practice ("hey gee we should test this stuff") and has yet to > grow up and get anywhere into the world of real engineering and quality.
No. Not *having* to check for errors in the cases that you care about is progress. How much of the core kernel actually deals with kmalloc failures sensibly? Some things just aren't worth it.
-- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org
| |