Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 09:01:29PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 08:39:14PM IST, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 06:32:28PM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: >> > [...] >> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 252 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> > > 7 files changed, 497 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > >> > [...] >> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c >> > > index 770a63103c7a..85042cb6f82e 100644 >> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c >> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c >> > >> > Please, keep this new code away from net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c >> >> Ok. Can it be a new file under net/netfilter, or should it live elsewhere? > > IPVS and OVS use conntrack for already quite a bit of time and they > keep their code in their respective folders. Those are users, though. This is adding a different set of exported functions, like a BPF version of EXPORT_SYMBOL(). We don't put those outside the module where the code lives either... I can buy not wanting to bloat nf_conntrack_core.c, but what's the problem with adding a net/netfilter_nf_conntrack_bpf.c that gets linked into the same kmod? -Toke
