Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] ipv6: update NUD_FAILED neighbors from NA messages

["Lawrence Lee" <lfqlee314@gmail.com>]

On Tue Sep 22, 2026 at 10:37 PM UTC,  wrote:
> [Severity: Low]
> This isn't a bug, but a note on test coverage for the new FAILED branch in
> ndisc_recv_na().
>
> At the time this patch is applied on its own, the in-tree selftests only
> walk the "absent entry" rows of the matrix: the matrix comment in
> tools/testing/selftests/net/ndisc_unsolicited_na_test.sh and verify_ndisc()
> start from an empty neighbor cache, and arp_ndisc_untracked_subnets.sh does
> the same for the accept=2 subnet rule. That leaves the new
>
> 	if (!neigh || (READ_ONCE(neigh->nud_state) & NUD_FAILED)) {
>
> path, and the FAILED rows now documented for accept_untracked_na, without a
> test.
>
> This is addressed later in the same series by "selftests: net: test
> untracked NA recovery of FAILED neighbors", which extends the matrix
> comment in ndisc_unsolicited_na_test.sh with the six "failed" rows, adds
> initial_state/same_subnet parameters to verify_ndisc() and
> test_unsolicited_na_common() that seed the entry with
>
> 	ip neigh replace ${HOST_ADDR} dev ${ROUTER_INTF} nud failed extern_learn
>
> and then adds cases for accept=1, accept=0, forwarding=0, drop=1 and both
> in-prefix and out-of-prefix accept=2, checking that the lladdr is learned
> for the STALE rows and absent for the rows that must stay FAILED. So the
> gap exists only for this commit in isolation, not for the final state of
> the series.
>
> Would it be worth mentioning the follow-up selftest patch in this commit
> message so the coverage relationship is visible when this commit is read
> alone?

The cover letter already mentions that tests are added in a separate 
patch in this series. I'm not aware of any precedent or convention to 
mention follow-up selftest patches in commit messages for earlier 
patches in the series.