On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 3:35 AM Petr Mladek <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > I wonder whether we should have "replace_set = 0" means no replace. > > This will simplify the transition for users of the existing replace=false > > option. I would like to hear other folks' thoughts on this. > > I would find this confusing. Also it would complicate the code.
Agreed with your assessment of the scenario. > I always considered the "replace" and "no replace" mode as two > separate worlds: > > + people using many "no replace" livepatches My only concern is that we are adding more burden to these users. Before replace_set, they just use 0 for all the live patches. With replace_set, they will have to use some mechanism to assign a unique replace_set for each livepatch. I don't know how many users are in this world. If there aren't many users, we can ignore this case. > + people always using atomic replace OTOH, these users don't need much change. They will just use replace_set = 1 for all live patches. Note that, I am not proposing to have replace_set = 1 to replace all live patches. It only needs to replace other live patches with replace_set = 1. The only change I am proposing (debating) here is to have replace_set = 0 as "no replace". However, if this still feels too confusing, or there are NOT many users in the "no replace" world, we can safely ignore this. Thanks, Song
