On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 2:28 AM Song Liu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.

The only valid use case for setting this to 0 is to keep certain
livepatches persistent on the system. Without replace_set, developers
are forced to disable replacement entirely. With replace_set, however,
they have a better, more selective option to keep specific livepatches
persistent. Therefore, I don't see this new semantic as an issue. On
the other hand, the new klp-build tool already requires developers to
significantly refactor their livepatch building and deployment
systems, so adapting to this new semantic shouldn't be an additional
burden.

> 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.


-- 
Regards
Yafang

Reply via email to