Re: [PATCH net-next v5 00/10] ipv6: report why a route was deleted in RTM_DELROUTE

Reply to comment in the other sashiko run:

https://netdev-ai.bots.linux.dev/sashiko/#/patchset/20260804014714.4362-1-sigefriedhyy%40gmail.com

> Should the netlink socket returned here be closed by the callers?
> [...] Would a defer(rtnl.close) [...] make teardown explicit?

> Same question for this raw ICMPv6 socket [...] Would a
> defer(sock.close) here be preferable?

> is the stated reason for the retry loop accurate? [...]
> addrconf_dad_begin() takes the early branch and never sends a DAD
> probe at all [...] Could the docstring describe that tentative
> window instead?

The comments above look valid, but I do not think they affect the
correctness of the test code, so it does not seem worth sending a v6
just to fix them. If a v6 is needed for other reasons, I will fix
them there.

> Should the #else branch also get a stub for ip6_del_rt_reason()?

The ip6_del_rt() stub exists only because __remove_nexthop_fib() in
net/ipv4/nexthop.c is obj-y and calls it with CONFIG_IPV6=n. The new
helper has no caller outside net/ipv6/, so a stub for it would be
dead code. I would rather add one when a caller needs it.

Thanks,

Yuyang