On 2/4/25 11:30 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 2/1/25 10:40 AM, Nilay Shroff wrote: >> +_have_module_not_in_use() { > > The name "_have_module_not_in_use()" sounds weird to me. Wouldn't > _module_not_in_use() be a better name? > Yeah _module_not_in_use() sounds better. I will incorporate this in the next patch. Thanks, --Nilay