Hi Jakub, Thanks for checking.
On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 08:56:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this > email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible. > [...] > This isn't a bug, but I noticed a couple of unaddressed review comments > from Ido Schimmel's feedback on v1 back in May 2025 that don't appear to > have been incorporated into this v2 series. I have the feeling this bot got confused somehow, maybe it does not fully get how things got restructured in br_multicast_querier_exists(), __br_multicast_querier_exists() and the newly added br_multicast_snooping_active()? > > In __br_multicast_querier_exists() in net/bridge/br_private.h around line > 1164, the 'is_ipv6' bool parameter is marked const. Since this is a > pass-by-value parameter, the const qualifier doesn't provide any benefit. > Should it be removed? > > Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aDNPxdmDPYwasUEM@shredder/ I'm not adding or moving any "const bool is_ipv6" anymore. Au contraire, I'm explicitly removing the "const" in is_ipv6 to __br_multicast_querier_exists() while restructuring things in [PATCH v2 13/14] now? > > Also in br_multicast_querier_exists() in net/bridge/br_private.h around > line 1182, the function takes a struct ethhdr *eth parameter but only uses > eth->h_proto. Would it make more sense to either make the 'eth' parameter > const, or just pass the EtherType (__be16) directly instead of the entire > struct pointer? > > Reference: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aDNPxdmDPYwasUEM@shredder/ > I think I also followed this one, too? In [PATCH v2 13/14] I'm removing passing a "struct ethhdr *eth" and am instead passing an "int proto" to br_multicast_querier_exists() and an "__be16 eth_proto" to br_multicast_snooping_active()? (I'm also unsure why this reply was to this patch and not [PATCH v2 13/14] -> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email protected]/)
