ENH: Accept callable for skiprows in read_csv
 Title is self-explanatory.

xref #10882.
Right now, I have added `[ci skip]` because I cannot get the C engine implementation to work yet.  Currently, if you pass in a `callable`, I get a segfault.  However, I'm not sure how to fix it.  Suggestions / help on what to do?  Is it some reference thing that I am missing? One possibility - is the GIL released when you're trying to call that function in the C code? @chris-b1 : Can't check at the moment, but could you explain why that would cause a segfault? To be honest, not sure if/how it would cause a segfault, but the general rule is you can't do anything involving a `PyObject` without the GIL.
https://docs.python.org/2/c-api/init.html#thread-state-and-the-global-interpreter-lock
 Might be of interest or relevance: <a href="https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6509">scipy/scipy #6509</a> @chris-b1 : You were right!  I needed to ensure that we were in a state to call `PyObject_CallFunction`.  The C engine is now happy.  PR should be ready to be reviewed soon. ## [Current coverage](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/15059?src=pr) is 84.75% (diff: 100%)
> Merging [#15059](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/pull/15059?src=pr) into [master](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/branch/master?src=pr) will decrease coverage by **<.01%**

```diff
@@             master     #15059   diff @@
==========================================
  Files           145        145          
  Lines         51220      51238    +18   
  Methods           0          0          
  Messages          0          0          
  Branches          0          0          
==========================================
+ Hits          43414      43426    +12   
- Misses         7806       7812     +6   
  Partials          0          0          
```

> Powered by [Codecov](https://codecov.io?src=pr). Last update [b8e7c34...d15e3a3](https://codecov.io/gh/pandas-dev/pandas/compare/b8e7c340fcf08b03ffdc8891fdc5ce7510d825b2...d15e3a3317d2406830f058abcd1a1c8be54ea559?src=pr) @jreback @jorisvandenbossche @chris-b1 : Thoughts on this? @jreback : @jorisvandenbossche and @chris-b1 have approved these changes.  I'm not sure if they're waiting for you to have a look, but if there are no other concerns, this should be good to merge I think. give a perf test on this, e.g. when the skiprows is NOT a callable perf should be roughly unchanged. @jreback : Ran benchmarks, and no major change in performance when using `skiprows`. thanks!