Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210216201813.60394-1-xie.he.0141@gmail.com> <YC4sB9OCl5mm3JAw@unreal>
 <CAJht_EN2ZO8r-dpou5M4kkg3o3J5mHvM7NdjS8nigRCGyih7mg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YC5DVTHHd6OOs459@unreal> <CAJht_EOhu+Wsv91yDS5dEt+YgSmGsBnkz=igeTLibenAgR=Tew@mail.gmail.com>
 <YC7GHgYfGmL2wVRR@unreal> <CAJht_EPZ7rVFd-XD6EQD2VJTDtmZZv0HuZvii+7=yhFgVz68VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJht_EPPMhB0JTtjWtMcGbRYNiZwJeMLWSC5hS6WhWuw5FgZtg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210219103948.6644e61f@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
 <CAJht_EOru3pW6AHN4QVjiaERpLSfg-0G0ZEaqU_hkhX1acv0HQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <906d8114f1965965749f1890680f2547@dev.tdt.de> <CAJht_EPBJhhdCBoon=WMuPBk-sxaeYOq3veOpAd2jq5kFqQHBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <e1750da4179aca52960703890e985af3@dev.tdt.de> <CAJht_ENP3Y98jgj1peGa3fGpQ-qPaF=1gtyYwMcawRFW_UCpeA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ff200b159ef358494a922a676cbef8a6@dev.tdt.de>
In-Reply-To: <ff200b159ef358494a922a676cbef8a6@dev.tdt.de>
From:   Xie He <xie.he.0141@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Mar 2021 00:56:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJht_EMG27YU+Jxtb2qeq1nXwu8uV8FXQPr62OcNHsE7DozD1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC v4] net: hdlc_x25: Queue outgoing LAPB frames
To:     Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de>
Cc:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Linux X25 <linux-x25@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 10:56 PM Martin Schiller <ms@dev.tdt.de> wrote:
>
> >> Also, I have a hard time assessing if such a wrap is really
> >> enforceable.
> >
> > Sorry. I don't understand what you mean. What "wrap" are you referring
> > to?
>
> I mean the change from only one hdlc<x> interface to both hdlc<x> and
> hdlc<x>_x25.
>
> I can't estimate how many users are out there and how their setup looks
> like.

I'm also thinking about solving this issue by adding new APIs to the
HDLC subsystem (hdlc_stop_queue / hdlc_wake_queue) for hardware
drivers to call instead of netif_stop_queue / netif_wake_queue. This
way we can preserve backward compatibility.

However I'm reluctant to change the code of all the hardware drivers
because I'm afraid of introducing bugs, etc. When I look at the code
of "wan/lmc/lmc_main.c", I feel I'm not able to make sure there are no
bugs (related to stop_queue / wake_queue) after my change (and even
before my change, actually). There are even serious style problems:
the majority of its lines are indented by spaces.

So I don't want to mess with all the hardware drivers. Hardware driver
developers (if they wish to properly support hdlc_x25) should do the
change themselves. This is not a problem for me, because I use my own
out-of-tree hardware driver. However if I add APIs with no user code
in the kernel, other developers may think these APIs are not
necessary.