Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH iwl-next v2 0/2] igc: enable build_skb path

Kohei Enju
2026-03-21T07:13:44Z

On 03/20 13:30, Tony Nguyen wrote:
>
>
> On 3/19/2026 11:05 PM, Kohei Enju wrote:
> > On 03/19 16:11, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 06:21:44AM +0000, Kohei Enju wrote:
> > > > This series enables the build_skb RX path in igc, which is currently not
> > > > enabled in any configuration.
> > > >
> > > > Patch 1/2 adds missing RX hardware timestamp handling in the build_skb
> > > > path.
> > > > Patch 2/2 enables the build_skb path when XDP is inactive and other
> > > > conditions are met.
> > > >
> > > > Tested on Intel Corporation Ethernet Controller I226-V (rev 04).
> > > >
> > > > Changes:
> > > > v2:
> > > > - don't insist on reverse christmas tree, reducing net diff in the
> > > > patch 1/2 (Dima)
> > > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/intel-wired-lan/20260307182808.155027-1-kohei@enjuk.jp/
> > > >
> > > > Kohei Enju (2):
> > > > igc: set RX hardware timestamps in igc_build_skb()
> > > > igc: enable build_skb on the non-XDP small-frame RX path
> > >
> > > For the series:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>
> >
> > Hi Tony, thanks for applying this series to next-queue.
> > I have a question about the process of patch submission.
> >
> > Sometimes reviewers give RB tags for a whole series like this, but I
> > think that those tags on the cover letter are not collected
> > automatically, right?
> >
> > In this case, should I add RB tags to each patch if I respin for other
> > reasons, or what is the recommended way to handle this?
>
> Hi Kohei,
>
> If you need to respin, feel free to carry the tags over. If you don't, I'll
> bring them over.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>

I understand. Thanks for explanation!

Regards,
Kohei