> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 12:19:31PM -0800, Song Liu wrote: > > All in all I've decided that more elaborated approach is slightly > > better. But if everyone in the community agrees that less > > "defensiveness" is not an issue and verifier could be simply made less > > restrictive, I'm fine with that. What do you think? > > I think the follower_cnt check is not necessary, and may cause confusions. > For tracing programs, we are very specific on "which function(s) are we > tracing". So I don't think circular attachment can be a real issue. Do we > have potential use cases that make the circular attach possible? At the moment no, nothing like that in sight. Ok, you've convinced me -- plus since nobody has yet actively mentioned that potential cycle prevention is nice to have, I can drop follower_cnt and the corresponding check in the verifier.
