On Tue, 17 May 2022 15:35:03 +0200 Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
