Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > With that reasoning we could get rid of the error handling of abort > completely as it's known not to fail. But only because it does not fail > right now doesn't mean that it won't in the future, as the infra for it > to fail is all in place. And in case it ever does the current code will > run into the bug I described. > > So in my opinion, we should either refactor the code to clarify that > this cannot fail indeed. Or do the right thing and handle the error case > correctly, which right now we don't. Sounds reasonable. Thanks for a good review.
