On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 17:14:55 -0700 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We have a ton of "magical" / hidden Kconfigs in networking, take a > look at net/Kconfig. Quick grep, likely not very accurate but FWIW: Fair enough. Thinking about it, I've grepped my distro's kernel config for features more than just a handful of times... > > How about making RX_OFFLOAD a separate .ko file, so we don't have > > various possible versions of can_dev.ko? > > > > @Vincent, I think you suggested that some time ago, IIRC? > > > > (I know, I was against a ton of little modules, but I'm changing my > > ways here now since it seems to help...) > > A separate module wouldn't help with my objections, I don't think. In a system where the CAN stack is compiled as modules (i.e. a regular desktop distribution), the feature's presence/absence would be easily visible via the .ko file's presence/absence. Then again, I have to agree, distributing a system where RX_OFFLOAD is present, but no drivers using it whatsoever, seems... strange. I guess I got lost in my thinking there, with my out of tree development and all. Sorry for the noise. Max
