On Wed. 8 juin 2022 at 09:14, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 01:43:54 +0200 Max Staudt wrote: > > It seems strange to me to magically build some extra features into > > can_dev.ko, depending on whether some other .ko files are built in that > > very same moment, or not. By "magically", I mean an invisible Kconfig > > option. This is why I think Vincent's approach is best here, by making > > the drivers a clearly visible subset of the RX_OFFLOAD option in > > Kconfig, and RX_OFFLOAD user-selectable. > > Sorry for a chunked response, vger becoming unresponsive the week after > the merge window seems to become a tradition :/ > > We have a ton of "magical" / hidden Kconfigs in networking, take a look > at net/Kconfig. Quick grep, likely not very accurate but FWIW: > > # not-hidden > $ git grep -c -E '(bool|tristate)..' net/Kconfig > net/Kconfig:23 > > # hidden > $ git grep -c -E '(bool|tristate)$' net/Kconfig > net/Kconfig:20 OK. So we have a proposal to make CAN_RX_OFFLOAD an hidden configuration. I did not consider this approach before because the CAN subsystem *never* relies on this and I did not really explore other Kbuild files. | $ git grep -c -E '(bool|tristate)$' net/can/Kconfig | <no output> Before pushing my driver upstream, it was also an out of tree module for about one year and I relate a lot to what Max said. But Jakub explanations are consistent and reflect the best practices of the kernel development. Also, mainstream distribution would do an allyesconfig and ship the can-dev.ko with everything built in. So the lambda user would still have everything built-in. I will let people continue to comment for a couple of days before making the final choice and sending the next version. But so far, I am leading toward Jakub’s idea to make it a hidden feature. > > 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.
