On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 05:43:11PM +0000, Lawrence Lee wrote: > On Wed Sep 16, 2026 at 12:02 PM UTC, Ido Schimmel wrote: > > I'm not sure why you added these lowpan changes to the patch. They are > > not described in the commit message. Given that lowpan_ndisc_update() > > already has a TODO comment about only handling overrides, I suggest to > > ignore it. If needed, it can be modified in the future by someone who > > can explain the use case and test the change. > > > > I added the lowpan changes after my local Sashiko review run identified > an issue where a FAILED neighbor can retain an outdated private short > address if it's moved to STALE by a non-override NA. Happy to drop all > lowpan-related changes or update comments/commit message to reflect the > changes, please let me know your preference.
And if the entry is INCOMPLETE and we get a non-override NA? lowpan_ndisc_update() will ignore it. It's a pre-existing issue and there is a TODO comment about this: "/* react on overrides only. TODO check if this is really right. */" You can mention that it's a pre-existing issue under the '---'. That way, hopefully, Sashiko will not flag it and it won't clutter the git log. [...] > Was originally unsure if I should modify the existing logical structure. > Thanks for the suggestion, will implement this. Is it appropriate to > credit you with a commit tag? No. I will add my R-b tag when appropriate. [...] > > What is the reason for this change? It's also not explained in the > > commit message and I suspect it's not needed. > > This was added in response to another Sashiko local review finding. > Let's say we have some FAILED neighbor T with NTF_ROUTER set. If we get > an NA from source address S with target address T and with the Router > bit clear, existing kernel code will cleanup routes with gateway S, but > IMO we should clean routes with gateway T instead since that is the > neighbor which was updated by the NA. I can either update > comments/commit message to reflect this or remove the change entirely, > please let me know your preference. And if the neighbour was in a different state than FAILED? It seems like another pre-existing issue. I guess that in practice, most of the time, the source address of the NA is also the target address in the payload. You can mention this under the '---'.
