[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: RFC: device attachment/detachment
On Sat, 2 May 2009, David Young wrote:
Mandating the return does not send a clear signal that leaking resources
is not ok. If we and we mandate the return and we commit the patch
under consideration, breaking every architecture but amd64 in the
process, then we will have a lot of resource leakage right off the bat,
and many developers, cursing, will hastily add 'return 0;' to get the
system to build again.
Could we add another #defined return value for unaudited, and
allow that as a migration measure? Would make it easy to
grep to find unaudited code also...
David/absolute -- www.NetBSD.org: No hype required --
Main Index |
Thread Index |