> -----Original Message----- > From: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 10:04 > To: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> > Cc: Danielle Ratson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Andy Roulin > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; Petr Machata > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bridge: uapi: Add neigh_forward_grat > netlink attributes > > On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 07:00:44PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Sun, 3 May 2026 10:35:27 +0300 Danielle Ratson wrote: > > > --- a/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-link.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-link.yaml > > > @@ -1700,6 +1700,9 @@ attribute-sets: > > > - > > > name: backup-nhid > > > type: u32 > > > + - > > > + name: neigh-forward-grat > > > + type: flag > > > > I think this should be u8 ? neigh-vlan-suppress looks buggy too > > I pointed this out during internal review, but assumed I am missing something > since almost all the attributes use flag when they are in fact u8. We can fix
This is in fact the reason why I also changed it myself to use flag before sending. > neigh-forward-grat to use u8 in v2 and change the rest in net. To be clear, I > believe the following should be converted from flag to u8: > > mode, guard, protect, fast-leave, learning, unicast-flood, proxyarp, learning- > sync, proxyarp-wifi, mcast-flood, mcast-to-ucast, vlan-tunnel, bcast-flood, > neigh-suppress, isolated, mrp-ring-open, mrp-in-open, locked, mab, neigh- > vlan-suppress > So should we proceed as Ido suggested? > > flag is a type without a payload, the presence of the attr is the > > entire information > > > > None of the AIs seem to catch this, I think you may have over-split > > this submission a little bit. This patch may have been better off > > squashed into patch 4 ? It seems like the patch has enough content, but I can squash. I guess ill split the commit between patches 4 and 5 accordingly. > > Related: The AI also did not catch that the spec was missing (easy to forget > for > rtnetlink). Do you think it's worth adding to review-prompts?
