> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org,  wyuenho@gmail.com,  78777@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:49:07 -0400
>
> I'm not a great fan of this `specbind` and maybe we could/should
> inhibit the ask-supersession prompt in a more direct way, but I think
> the patch below is an improvement (and should fix the "lsp-mode +
> reformatter" case that triggered the current bug report).
>
> Any objection to pushing it to `master`?

TBH, I don't like this, because it just makes the issue more subtle.

IMO, if we want to solve this cleanly, we should introduce a variable
which, when bound, causes ask-user-about-supersession-threat to do
nothing and return.  Then insert-file-contents could bind that
variable instead of buffer-file-name.  Alternatively, the test for
this new variable could be in prepare_to_modify_buffer, here:

  if (!NILP (BVAR (base_buffer, file_truename))
      /* Make binding buffer-file-name to nil effective.  */
      && !NILP (BVAR (base_buffer, filename))
      && SAVE_MODIFF >= MODIFF)
    Flock_file (BVAR (base_buffer, file_truename));

As yet another alternative, we could add to the test above some other
internal knob C variable that insert-file-contents could use, so that
the above condition is not satisfied.

IMO, any of these alternatives is better than your proposal, because
it solves the problem completely, not partially, and because it
doesn't run any risks of regressions due to the VISIT case which until
now did not matter.