Re: Linux 2.6.29

Matthew Garrett
2009-03-27T15:22:46Z

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