Code review comment for ~sylvain-pineau/checkbox-support:usb_scripts_low_mem

> Looks good, +1.
>
> Two subjective, style-related comments in line.
>
> One general thought I have for the whole usb_read_write.py is that I feel like
> instead of optimizing size of the "test file" we should generate the data on-
> the-fly and write it to two pipes, one to compute the hash for reference, and
> one that will be written to the drive.
>
> Or at least generate the random file in a less memory-hungry way.
> The reference md5 computation doesn't have to be done on a written file. First
> thought is to use hashlib from python, block by block. The real solution,
> however, is to use precomputed hashes. For any given size the hash can be
> known statically (there is a hardcoded seed).
>
> To sum up: content of RandomData could be written to the target file on the
> fly without a need of any huge buffer. If the size is known upfront
> precomputed hash can be used.
>
> I feel bad about circumventing the real problem in the script instead of
> fixing it.

Ha, the first line with +1 got changed to +0 when I kept reading the usb_read_write.py :)