RE: [PATCH net-next 1/6] bridge: uapi: Add neigh_forward_grat netlink attributes

[Danielle Ratson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 10:04
> To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Danielle Ratson <danieller@xxxxxxxxxx>; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> donald.hunter@xxxxxxxxx; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx; horms@xxxxxxxxxx; razor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> andrew+netdev@xxxxxxx; shuah@xxxxxxxxxx; ast@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> liuhangbin@xxxxxxxxx; daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Andy Roulin
> <aroulin@xxxxxxxxxx>; fmaurer@xxxxxxxxxx; sdf.kernel@xxxxxxxxx;
> sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kees@xxxxxxxxxx; nickgarlis@xxxxxxxxx;
> amorenoz@xxxxxxxxxx; alasdair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> johannes.wiesboeck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Petr Machata
> <petrm@xxxxxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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?