Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <22590a57-c7c6-39c6-06d5-11c6e4e1534b@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 16:35:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and
 can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Max Staudt <max@enpas.org>
Cc:     Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        Vincent MAILHOL <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>,
        linux-can@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220513142355.250389-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <20220514141650.1109542-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <20220514141650.1109542-4-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
 <7b1644ad-c117-881e-a64f-35b8d8b40ef7@hartkopp.net>
 <CAMZ6RqKZMHXB7rQ70GrXcVE7x7kytAAGfE+MOpSgWgWgp0gD2g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220517060821.akuqbqxro34tj7x6@pengutronix.de>
 <CAMZ6RqJ3sXYUOpw7hEfDzj14H-vXK_i+eYojBk2Lq=h=7cm7Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220517104545.eslountqjppvcnz2@pengutronix.de>
 <e054f6d4-7ed1-98ac-8364-425f4ef0f760@hartkopp.net>
 <20220517141404.578d188a.max@enpas.org>
 <20220517122153.4r6n6kkbdslsa2hv@pengutronix.de>
 <20220517143921.08458f2c.max@enpas.org>
 <0b505b1f-1ee4-5a2c-3bbf-6e9822f78817@hartkopp.net>
 <20220517154301.5bf99ba9.max@enpas.org>
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220517154301.5bf99ba9.max@enpas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 17.05.22 15:43, Max Staudt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:35:03 +0200
> Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net> wrote:
> 
>> Oh, I didn't want to introduce two new kernel modules but to have
>> can_dev in different 'feature levels'.
> 
> Which I agree is a nice idea, as long as heisenbugs can be avoided :)
> 
> (as for the separate modules vs. feature levels of can-dev - sorry, my
> two paragraphs were each referring to a different idea. I mixed them
> into one single email...)
> 
> 
> Maybe the can-skb and rx-offload parts could be a *visible* sub-option
> of can-dev in Kconfig, which is normally optional, but immediately
> force-selected once a CAN HW driver is selected?

I think it should be even more simple.

When you enter the current Kconfig page of "CAN Device Drivers" every 
selection of vcan/vxcan/slcan should directly select CAN_DEV_SW.

The rest could stay the same, e.g. selecting CAN_DEV "Platform CAN 
drivers with Netlink support" which then enables CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and 
CAN_LEDS to be selectable. Which also makes sure the old .config files 
still apply.

And finally the selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and
mcp251xfd automatically selects CAN_DEV_RX_OFFLOAD.

Then only some more Makefile magic has to be done to build can-dev.ko 
accordingly.

Best regards,
Oliver


> 
> 
>> But e.g. the people that are running Linux instances in a cloud only
>> using vcan and vxcan would not need to carry the entire
>> infrastructure of CAN hardware support and rx-offload.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you have an example use case for this vcan cloud
> setup? I can't dream one up...
> 
> 
> 
> Max