linux-kernel - Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46A0B06B.3060701@cubic.ch>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 14:54:03 +0200
From:	Tim Tassonis <timtas@...ic.ch>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ak@...e.de,
	adaplas@...il.com, linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 
> I think "must_check" is an abomination. It makes the callee dictate what 
> the caller has to do, but dammit, if the callee really "knows" its errors 
> are that serious, it should damn well handle them itself.
> 
> The whole "sysfs_create_file()" thing is an example of that. If it fails, 
> it fails. The caller can't do anythign about it anyway, except perhaps 
> print a message.  Why the hell does such a function have the "right" to 
> dictate what the user should do?

Well, that's just how OO fascists think. An object dictates to the user 
what he/she can do with it, as opposed to the user can do what he 
wants/needs.


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