On Thursday, 1 October 2026 12:10:27 CEST netdev-bot+sashiko@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
> [Severity: Low]
> 
> This isn't a bug, but is the "prepared by batadv_tt_local_mark_removed()"
> wording accurate at this commit?
> 
> In this commit, batadv_tt_local_mark_removed() doesn't build any event. It
> only saves *curr_flags and sets BATADV_TT_CLIENT_ROAM and
> BATADV_TT_CLIENT_PENDING on common->flags. The DEL and ROAM event flags are
> built right after this comment and then passed to
> batadv_tt_local_set_pending_event().

This is just an intermediate move

> The other two points are small wording nits. Both come from code that was
> already there before this patch.
> 
> The comment moved into batadv_tt_local_mark_removed() starts with "if this
> global entry addition is due to a roaming". The helper's kernel-doc
> describes @roaming as "true if the deletion is due to a roaming event".
> 
> The only caller passing roaming=true is batadv_tt_global_add(), so the
> wording is correct in context. Would it read more naturally in terms of
> the deletion, to match the kernel-doc?

No, it would be wrong. The global one is added and the local one is removed.

Regards,
	Sven