Revert 180288

Revert 180288

This is to test the hypothesis that this change is responsible for a memory increase in the plugin process. It is a temporary change and should be reverted within the coming days.

BUG=176330
> Fix enable state of Pepper Flash.
> 
> Component-updated and bundled Pepper Flash share the same enable state. When
> reading from the Preferences file, the previous code ignored the enable state
> if it was associated with the component-updated path. That was wrong because if
> the component-updated Flash was newer, the enable state would be recorded with
> that path. The outcome was that everytime users restarted the browser, Pepper
> Flash was enabled, even if they disabled it before.
> 
> TBR=bauerb@chromium.org
> BUG=150596
> TEST=None
> 
> Review URL: https://codereview.chromium.org/12079044

TBR=yzshen@chromium.org

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=184265

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-22 23:35:13]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/raymes@chromium.org/12316081/4001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-23 00:02:27]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on android_clang_dbg.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=android_cl...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-23 00:32:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/raymes@chromium.org/12316081/10003

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-02-23 02:38:22]

Change committed as 184265

[Bernhard Bauer, 2013-02-26 07:13:49]

Has this had any results? FWIW, I doubt a change in the browser code has any
result on memory usage in the plugin process.

[raymes, 2013-02-26 16:43:03]

No this had no effect (which we expected). All the blamelists pointed
to this change though so we gave it a shot anyway.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:13 PM,  <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:
> Has this had any results? FWIW, I doubt a change in the browser code has any
> result on memory usage in the plugin process.
>
> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12316081/

[raymes, 2013-02-27 16:32:16]

It turns out this change probably did have an effect on memory in the
plugin! The uma data hadn't caught up yet. See the associated bug.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Raymes Khoury <raymes@chromium.org> wrote:
> No this had no effect (which we expected). All the blamelists pointed
> to this change though so we gave it a shot anyway.
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 11:13 PM,  <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Has this had any results? FWIW, I doubt a change in the browser code has any
>> result on memory usage in the plugin process.
>>
>> https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/12316081/