dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think that code might be more clear if you change the cleanup step
>> to be a funtion and it will make simpler to spot what is being done in
>> each case.
>
> Yes, this does improve readability.
And it did, indeed. This lastest version is much easier to read. :-)
Nice job.
>> I see no point in using aggresive policy. It would unload the modules
>> detected by udev and since we provide a small set of modules it looks
>> useless to me. Do you see any possible usage?
>
> No - it was just something I was playing with (see my comment in the
> code warning people not to use it). Also, I only think it makes sense
> to include a policy setting if its an option - e.g. an environment
> variable. If we find only only one policy useful, the others should be
> dropped to reduce code size/complexity.
Great.
It looks like we just need to put it inside of d-i and see if it gives
any regression, otherwise it looks like a nice improvement of what we
have now.
Have you done any test to see if it changes the memory footprint?
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
