On 6/10/16, 5:44 PM, "Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefa...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:02:47PM +0200, Gerard Garcia wrote: >> On 06/01/2016 11:07 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 06:29:05PM +0200, ggar...@abra.uab.cat wrote: >> > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> > > index 6b158ab..ec7a05d 100644 >> > > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> > > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c >> > > @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ >> > > #include <linux/unistd.h> >> > > #include <linux/wait.h> >> > > #include <linux/workqueue.h> >> > > +#include <linux/if_arp.h> >> > > #include <net/sock.h> >> > > #include <net/af_vsock.h> >> > > @@ -2012,6 +2013,110 @@ const struct vsock_transport >> > > *vsock_core_get_transport(void) >> > > } >> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vsock_core_get_transport); >> > > +/**** TAP ****/ >> > Feel free to put this in a separate source file. The Kbuild can link >> > multiple objects into a single kernel module. That would be cleaner >> > than using a big comment to separate it from af_vsock.c code. >> I'm following the af_vsock.c style, where different logic is separated using >> this style of comments. It is not a lot of code >> so I thought it would be cleaner to have it in the same file. > >It's up to the af_vsock.c maintainer, but if we keep appending >independent chunks of code to one file it becomes hard to manage and >chances of conflicts during patch merging increases. I agree with Stefan - af_vsock.c is already undesirably large, so it would be great if you could make this a separate file.
