Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

[Linus Torvalds]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/