lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-27 16:25    [W:0.511 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site