Re: Linux 2.6.29

[Matthew Garrett]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/