Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It's very tempting considering that the amount of changes is much > smaller. But I think we should go with my version. The hope is when a > _new_ call site appears, the author would think twice before passing > zero or one to the safe_path argument. Wouldn't it be a better API if the author of new callsite does not have to think twice and can instead rely on the called function untracked_cache_invalidate_path() to always do the right thing?
