From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.kapsi.fi ([217.30.184.167]:48467 "EHLO mail.kapsi.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751328Ab2EUCWX (ORCPT ); Sun, 20 May 2012 22:22:23 -0400 Message-ID: <4FB9A6D9.8020603@iki.fi> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 05:22:17 +0300 From: Antti Palosaari MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VDR User CC: Devin Heitmueller , linux-media , Patrick Boettcher , Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [RFCv1] DVB-USB improvements [alternative 2] References: <4FB95A3B.9070800@iki.fi> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 21.05.2012 03:36, VDR User wrote: > On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Devin Heitmueller > wrote: >> If you think this is important, then you should feel free to submit >> patches to Antti's tree. Otherwise, this is the sort of optimization >> that brings so little value as to not really be worth the engineering >> effort. The time is better spent working on problems that *actually* >> have a visible effect to users (and a few extra modules being loaded >> does not fall into this category). >> >> I think you'll find after spending a few hours trying to abstract out >> the logic and the ugly solution that results that it *really* isn't >> worth it. > > So you think that it makes more sense to ignore existing issues rather > than fix them. Isn't fixing issues& flaws the whole point of an > overhaul/redesign? Yes, it is. I do get the point you're trying to > make -- there are bigger fish to fry. But this is not an urgent > project and I disagree with the attitude to just disregard whatever > you deem unimportant. If you're going to do it, do it right. I am not sure what you trying to say. Do you mean I should try to get remote controller totally optional module which can be left out? How much memory will be saved if remote can be left out as unloaded? regards Antti -- http://palosaari.fi/