"Nicholas Piggin" <npig...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri Oct 20, 2023 at 7:39 AM AEST, Greg Kurz wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 21:08:25 +0200 >> Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com> wrote:
> So the reason we can't have duplicate names registered, aside from it > surely going bad if we actually send or receive a stream at the point > they are registered, is the duplcate check introduced in patch 9? But > before that, this hack does seem to actually work because the duplicate > is unregistered right away. You are creating a new general case that has only a single use that you agree it is "hacky" O:-) The problem here is that you haven't made your mind what "ipc/server" means. You want sometimes to mean pre_2_10, sometimes to mean other thing. That is not how this is supposed to work. See my proposed change, it is one line change, and just do the right thing. I know, it breaks backwards compatibility. But for one machine type that people are proposing to deprecate/remove. > If I understand the workaround, there is an asymmetry in the migration > sequence in that receiving an unexpected object would cause a failure, > but going from newer to older would just skip some "expected" objects > and that didn't cause a problem. So you only have to deal with ignoring > the unexpected ones going form older to newer. Ok, found a different workaround. Sending a new version of the series with a different hack that maintains backwards compatibility. Later, Juan.