Message ID | 20240404114854.2498663-1-leitao@debian.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | allocate dummy device dynamically | expand |
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!
Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org> writes: > 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? A regular patch, like you did last time with ath11k, is fine for me. But please do add a lore or patchwork link to the depency patchset so that I'm testing with correct patches.