Tim Knitter wrote: > Dave and Evan, > > I addressed both your comments in the latest webrev. Please take a look > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/1868_slim/ >
beadm.py 1339 et al I'm bugged as can "be" about the inconsistent capitalization of BE/Be in this code. I'd agree with Ethan's comment about moving be_is_active_on_boot to be_activate.c. This is why I generally despise source files called "*utils.c", as they turn into a dumping ground of random things. It's not like conserving the number of source files is an actual goal in development... Dave > Thanks > Tim > > Dave Miner wrote: >> Tim Knitter wrote: >>> >>> Dave Miner wrote: >>>> Tim S. Knitter wrote: >>>>> Can someone please review the following? >>>>> >>>>> 1868 beadm destroy creates an empty grub menu >>>>> >>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1868 >>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~tsk/1868_slim/ >>>>> >>>> The fix seems a little problematic yet. The sequencing you've chosen >>>> here means that if we fail to activate the current menu item (which, >>>> though fairly unlikely, is certainly possible), then we still end up >>>> with a GRUB menu without an active entry. I'd rather we did things >>>> in an order that made that not possible. >>>> >>> I fixed this in the latest webrev. If you could verify when you can >>> find a spare moment, I'd appreciate it. >>> >> Two things: >> >> - I found it odd that be_activate_current_be is off in the be_utils.c >> rather than in be_activate.c. Any particular reason it's there? >> >> - It seems like beadm perhaps should print a message noting which be >> will be active, just so the user realizes this and can correct if >> desired. Or, perhaps have the confirmation prompt that's put up note >> this case. >> >> Dave
