From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Hangbin Liu" <hangbin.liu@linux.dev>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 6/6] netlink: specs: rt-route: describe seg6-local attrs
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2026 01:51:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261001015133.E361A1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260930-ynl_rt_encap-v3-6-4106c21b9ee7@kylinos.cn>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] netlink: incorrect type: flags causes uAPI mismatch for seg6-local-flv-ops
- [Low] netlink: yaml naming convention violation in seg6-local-flv-ops name-prefix
- [Low] netlink: missing doc properties on new major yaml spec additions
--
commit 1d8d137d71e90b2ea51b5a3ae23d03831ee06b0b
Author: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@kylinos.cn>
netlink: specs: rt-route: describe seg6-local attrs
This commit adds SEG6 local actions enums and seg6-local-flv-ops flags to the
rt-route Netlink specification. It also replaces binary attributes with nested
seg6-local-bpf, seg6-local-cnt, and seg6-local-flv definitions.
> diff --git a/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml b/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml
> index afec0375661f5..0260fca398d2c 100644
> --- a/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/netlink/specs/rt-route.yaml
> @@ -116,6 +116,45 @@ definitions:
> - rpl
> - ioam6
> - xfrm
> + -
> + name: seg6-local-actions
> + type: enum
[Severity: Low]
Does this new major property need a doc field? The Netlink subsystem
guidelines recommend that each major property should carry a doc entry to
explain its purpose.
[ ... ]
> + -
> + name: seg6-local-flv-ops
> + type: flags
> + name-prefix: seg6_local_flv_op-
[Severity: High]
Can using type: flags here cause a uAPI mismatch with the kernel?
The kernel uAPI defines these operations as sequential values (for example,
SEG6_LOCAL_FLV_OP_USD is 3). When type: flags is used, the YNL code
generator will emit bitmasks (1, 2, 4, 8), resulting in
SEG6_LOCAL_FLV_OP_USD being incorrectly defined as 8 in the generated
headers.
Would it be safer to use type: enum to ensure the generated values match
the existing kernel constants?
[Severity: Low]
Also, could the name-prefix use dashes instead of underscores? The naming
convention for YAML specs specifies that names should contain dashes, as
the code generator handles converting them to underscores for the C code.
[Severity: Low]
Additionally, should seg6-local-flv-ops include a doc property?
[ ... ]
> @@ -634,6 +677,50 @@ attribute-sets:
> -
> name: name
> type: string
> + -
> + name: seg6-local-bpf
> + name-prefix: seg6-local-bpf-
[Severity: Low]
Would it be helpful to include a doc property for this attribute set? The
guidelines mention that new major properties, such as seg6-local-bpf,
seg6-local-cnt, and seg6-local-flv, should carry documentation.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260930-ynl_rt_encap-v3-0-4106c21b9ee7@kylinos.cn?part=6
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-01 1:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-30 1:50 [PATCH net-next v3 0/6] netlink: add lwtunnel encap sub-message support to rt-route Hangbin Liu
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] net: lwtunnel: change encap fill order Hangbin Liu
2026-10-01 14:09 ` Ido Schimmel
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 2/6] tools: ynl: convert enum selector to string for sub-message parsing Hangbin Liu
2026-10-01 1:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-03 6:23 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-10-05 22:33 ` Jakub Kicinski
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 3/6] netlink: specs: rt-route: add lwtunnel encap sub-message support Hangbin Liu
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 4/6] netlink: specs: rt-route: describe lwtunnel IP options Hangbin Liu
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 5/6] netlink: specs: rt-route: describe lwt BPF program options Hangbin Liu
2026-10-01 1:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-03 6:09 ` Hangbin Liu
2026-09-30 1:50 ` [PATCH net-next v3 6/6] netlink: specs: rt-route: describe seg6-local attrs Hangbin Liu
2026-10-01 1:51 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-03 6:17 ` Hangbin Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261001015133.E361A1F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hangbin.liu@linux.dev \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.