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;
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 15:43:01 +0200
From:   Max Staudt <max@enpas.org>
To:     Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and
 can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c
Message-ID: <20220517154301.5bf99ba9.max@enpas.org>
In-Reply-To: <0b505b1f-1ee4-5a2c-3bbf-6e9822f78817@hartkopp.net>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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?


> 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