lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/4] can: skb:: move can_dropped_invalid_skb and can_skb_headroom_valid to skb.c
On 18.05.2022 15:10:44, Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> On 18.05.22 14:03, Vincent MAILHOL wrote:
> > I didn't think this would trigger such a passionate discussion!
>
> :-D
>
> Maybe your change was the drop that let the bucket run over ;-)

It's so trivial that everybody feels the urge to say something. :D

> > > 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.
> >
> > Are there really some people running custom builds of the Linux kernel
> > in a cloud environment? The benefit of saving a few kilobytes by not
> > having to carry the entire CAN hardware infrastructure is blown away
> > by the cost of having to maintain a custom build.
>
> When looking to the current Kconfig and Makefile content in
> drivers/net/can(/dev) there is also some CONFIG_CAN_LEDS which "depends on
> BROKEN" and builds a leds.o from a non existing leds.c ?!?
>
> Oh leds.c is in drivers/net/can/leds.c but not in drivers/net/can/dev/leds.c
> where it could build ... ?
>
> So what I would suggest is that we always build a can-dev.ko when a CAN
> driver is needed.
>
> Then we have different options that may be built-in:
>
> 1. netlink hw config interface
> 2. bitrate calculation
> 3. rx-offload
> 4. leds
>
> E.g. having the netlink interface without bitrate calculation does not make
> sense to me too.

ACK

> > I perfectly follow the idea to split rx-offload. Integrators building
> > some custom firmware for an embedded device might want to strip out
> > any unneeded piece. But I am not convinced by this same argument when
> > applied to v(x)can.
>
> It does. I've seen CAN setups (really more than one or two!) in VMs and
> container environments that are fed by Ethernet tunnels - sometimes also in
> embedded devices.
>
> > A two level split (with or without rx-offload) is what makes the most
> > sense to me.
> >
> > Regardless, having the three level split is not harmful. And because
> > there seems to be a consensus on that, I am fine to continue in this
> > direction.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Should we remove the extra option for the bitrate calculation then?

+1

> And what about the LEDS support depending on BROKEN?
> That was introduced by commit 30f3b42147ba6f ("can: mark led trigger as
> broken") from Uwe as it seems there were some changes in 2018.

There's a proper generic LED trigger now for network devices. So remove
LED triggers, too.

Marc

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-18 15:33    [W:0.224 / U:0.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site