On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 03:17:06PM -0800, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > On 11/05, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > Thank you for the context! > > I think that the current approach is ok, we can go with that, but I > wonder whether we can simplify things a bit? What if we prohibit the > co-existence of autorelease=on and autorelease=off sockets on the > system? The first binding basically locks the kernel path into one way or > the other (presumably by using static-branch) and prohibits new bindings > that use a different mode. It will let us still keep the mode on the binding > and will help us not think about the co-existance (we can also still keep > things like one-dmabuf-per-socket restrictions in the new mode, etc). >
That approach is okay by me. Best, Bobby > I think for you, Mina, this should still work? You have a knob to go back > to the old mode if needed. At the same time, we keep the UAPI surface > smaller and keep the path more simple. Ideally, we can also deprecate > the old mode at some point (if you manage to successfully migrate of > course). WDYT?
