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
