Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-131607-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 07:22:03 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc: aleksander.lobakin@intel.com, kuba@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
	pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, elder@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, nbd@nbd.name,
	sean.wang@mediatek.com, Mark-MC.Lee@mediatek.com,
	lorenzo@kernel.org, taras.chornyi@plvision.eu,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com, leon@kernel.org,
	dennis.dalessandro@cornelisnetworks.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/5] allocate dummy device dynamically
Message-ID: <Zg63iwvtTMlZSGcd@gmail.com>
References: <20240404114854.2498663-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <87plv549ts.fsf@kernel.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87plv549ts.fsf@kernel.org>

Hello Kalle,

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 02:59:59PM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > struct net_device shouldn't be embedded into any structure, instead,
> > the owner should use the private space to embed their state into
> > net_device.
> >
> > But, in some cases the net_device is embedded inside the private
> > structure, which blocks the usage of zero-length arrays inside
> > net_device.
> >
> > Create a helper to allocate a dummy device at dynamically runtime, and
> > move the Ethernet devices to use it, instead of embedding the dummy
> > device inside the private structure.
> >
> > This fixes all the network cases except for wireless drivers.
> >
> > PS: Due to lack of hardware, unfortunately all these patches are
> > compiled tested only.
> 
> BTW if it helps, and if you have an ath10k or ath11k patch already, I
> can run a quick test on real hardware.

That would be very much appreciated! Thanks!

I don't have them ready yet, but, I will work on them soon and I will
send it to you probably tomorrow.

Should I send them as RFC, or as a regular patch, and we iterate over?
What would you prefer?

Thanks!