Re: [net-next,v2,05/14] net: bridge: mcast: track active state, foreign IGMP/MLD querier disappearance

Linus Lüssing <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.network.bridge,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel
Message-ID <aYvx_ghdIarDKFqR@sellars>
Hi Jakub,

Thanks for checking.

On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 08:56:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> [...]
> This isn't a bug, but I noticed a couple of unaddressed review comments
> from Ido Schimmel's feedback on v1 back in May 2025 that don't appear to
> have been incorporated into this v2 series.

I have the feeling this bot got confused somehow, maybe it does
not fully get how things got restructured in
br_multicast_querier_exists(), __br_multicast_querier_exists()
and the newly added br_multicast_snooping_active()?

> 
> In __br_multicast_querier_exists() in net/bridge/br_private.h around line
> 1164, the 'is_ipv6' bool parameter is marked const. Since this is a
> pass-by-value parameter, the const qualifier doesn't provide any benefit.
> Should it be removed?
> 
> Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aDNPxdmDPYwasUEM@shredder/

I'm not adding or moving any "const bool is_ipv6" anymore. Au
contraire, I'm explicitly removing the "const" in is_ipv6 to
__br_multicast_querier_exists() while restructuring
things in [PATCH v2 13/14] now?

> 
> Also in br_multicast_querier_exists() in net/bridge/br_private.h around
> line 1182, the function takes a struct ethhdr *eth parameter but only uses
> eth->h_proto. Would it make more sense to either make the 'eth' parameter
> const, or just pass the EtherType (__be16) directly instead of the entire
> struct pointer?
> 
> Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aDNPxdmDPYwasUEM@shredder/
> 

I think I also followed this one, too? In [PATCH v2 13/14] I'm
removing passing a "struct ethhdr *eth" and am instead passing an
"int proto" to br_multicast_querier_exists() and an
"__be16 eth_proto" to br_multicast_snooping_active()?


(I'm also unsure why this reply was to this patch and not
[PATCH v2 13/14] ->
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email protected]/)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.