On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 09:41:34PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > 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. If you are worried about potential future situations where cyclic attaches are possible would it make sense to add a test that checks if this fails? -- Regards, Artem
