Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <0b505b1f-1ee4-5a2c-3bbf-6e9822f78817@hartkopp.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 15:35:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
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>, Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     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>
From:   Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220517143921.08458f2c.max@enpas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 5/17/22 14:39, Max Staudt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022 14:21:53 +0200
> Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> 
>> On 17.05.2022 14:14:04, Max Staudt wrote:
>>>> After looking through drivers/net/can/Kconfig I would probably
>>>> phrase it like this:
>>>>
>>>> Select CAN devices (hw/sw) -> we compile a can_dev module. E.g.
>>>> to handle the skb stuff for vcan's.
>>>>
>>>> Select hardware CAN devices -> we compile the netlink stuff into
>>>> can_dev and offer CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and CAN_LEDS to be compiled
>>>> into can_dev too.
>>>>
>>>> In the latter case: The selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and
>>>> mcp251xfd automatically selects CAN_RX_OFFLOAD which is then also
>>>> compiled into can_dev.
>>>>
>>>> Would that fit in terms of complexity?
>>>
>>> IMHO these should always be compiled into can-dev. Out of tree
>>> drivers are fairly common here, and having to determine which kind
>>> of can-dev (stripped or not) the user has on their system is a
>>> nightmare waiting to happen.
>>
>> I personally don't care about out-of-tree drivers.
> 
> I know that this is the official stance in the kernel.
> 
> But out-of-tree drivers do happen on a regular basis, even when
> developing with the aim of upstreaming. And if a developer builds a
> minimal kernel to host a CAN driver, without building in-tree hardware
> CAN drivers, then can-dev will be there but behave differently from
> can-dev in a full distro. Leading to heisenbugs and wasting time. The
> source of heisenbugs really are the suggested *hidden* Kconfigs.
> 
> 
> On another note, is the module accounting overhead in the kernel for
> two new modules with relatively little code in each, code that almost
> always is loaded when CAN is used, really worth it?

Oh, I didn't want to introduce two new kernel modules but to have 
can_dev in different 'feature levels'.

I would assume a distro kernel to have everything enabled with a full 
featured can_dev - which is likely the base for out-of-tree drivers too.

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.

Best regards,
Oliver