Thanks, Joshua. Stephen, could you please merge these, or let me know if we still need a v5?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 11:06 PM Joshua Washington <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2026 at 9:55 AM Stephen Hemminger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 13:24:03 +0530 > > Tathagat Priyadarshi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > +static inline bool > > > > > +gve_tx_validate_pkt(const struct rte_mbuf *tx_pkt, bool is_tso) > > > > > > > > Minor nit (not worth blocking over, but maybe can be done as the > > > > patches are being merged): can this be renamed to > > > > gve_tx_validate_pkt_len? This is one step of many in the packet > > > > validation pipeline. > > > > > > Thanks for the review, Joshua. Agreed on renaming to > > > gve_tx_validate_pkt_len. > > > This change impacts patches 9/10 and 10/10. I am happy to submit a v5 > > > series if preferred, > > > or the maintainer can rename it upon applying. > > > > Renames should go through patchwork. I can cleanup commit messages and > > release notes, that is where I stop. > > In that case, would it be okay to merge as-is? I will be following up > this series directly with some TX datapath fixes of my own which are > kind of related to Tathagat's fixes, so I can probably update the > function name in my patch series, rather than going to v5.
