On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 10:34:29PM +0000, Gunnar Kudrjavets wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2026 at 07:35 PM Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is great observation but it is not a regression technically. > > > > Thus, this really should just state the issue and don't make it look > > like a bug report based on transcript that does not happen in the wild. > > Thank you for the feedback, Jarkko. That's a fair point. Since no > in-tree caller exercises this path today, framing it as a regression > is misleading. I'm happy to rework the commit description to present > it as a proactive hardening fix rather than a bug report, and drop the > Fixes tag accordingly. > > > I guess this is better than parameter removal since name caching would > > make sense [1] in future. > > Agreed. Keeeping the name parameter functional makes the API ready > for name caching without further changes. > > Would you prefer I resend with the adjusted description, or would you > like to suggest specific wording? Happy to go either way.
Yeah so the point here is probably to prevent unmasking a bug in future, with the specific example of name caching. I.e., I see the change itself useful and important despite not being a bug fix per se. > > Gunnar BR, Jarkko
