Bug#454493: Display PCI slot for nics, if available

On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 09:43:15AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> dann frazier <dannf@debian.org> writes:
>
> >> imo, the best and more widly solution would be the 2. That shouldn't
> >> be too hard and would allow us to reduce the memory footprint not only
> >> on your user case but in general usage too.
> >
> > Might be vearing off topic for this bug, but here's a wrapper I worked
> > up (not yet tested in the d-i environment).
>
> It looks nice.
>
> 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.

> 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.

Attached is a new version that incorporates your factoring suggestion, and does away with the policy options.

-- 
dann frazier

-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org