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