On Mon, 2010-07-12 at 13:12 -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
quoted text > Em Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 10:30:36AM -0400, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
quoted text > Well, I prefer to follow the kernel way of doing things, i.e. to
> propagate as much as possible up the callchain the error return value,
> so that the apps can handle it in any way they prefer, i.e. die() calls
> in tools/perf/builtin-foo.c are okayish, but not on tools/perf/util/.
Ah, yes, die is a bit strong. And I have been starting to avoid them
too. Although, when malloc fails, it's almost certain that the app will
die soon anyway ;-)
-- Steve
--
unsubscribe notice To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at
http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at
http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCHv9 2.6.35-rc4-tip 10/13] perf: Re-Add make_abso ... , Steven Rostedt , (Tue Jul 13, 7:49 pm)