> > Well eventually we also have to clear for location if we run out of > > memory, that usually means dumping them out to the host, no? > > Being out of memory and consuming more memory are different > things, but I agree - maybe we don't need to worry about it. Well, reaching the limit of what we're willing to spend on it is equivalent I guess :) > > I'm not entirely sure about this case - surely noticing "we can do > > better now" is still better than waiting for being able to make the > > perfect decision? > > Maybe we can just keep flag saying that currently available results > were not received by usual full scan. Elsewhere we were planning per-channel results, and a cookie to filter them - perhaps we could have a similar thing where you may even have to request these scan results specifically with a certain cookie you got from the scanning, or so. Or indicate the cookie there so you can tie it back to the scan request somehow? > So, let's summarize: > Instead of creating new type of generic scan with special types, > we want to go with additional expansion of scheduled scan options and > parameters (in order not to "multiply entities"), including ability > to send new scheduled scan request without stopping previous one. > > Is it Ok? Sounds fine to me. johannes
