Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] livepatch: Support scoped atomic replace using replace set

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