Re: [PATCH] mm/memfd: Rename error labels for clarity

[Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev>]

On 2025/6/10 08:26, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon,  9 Jun 2025 11:18:58 +0800 Ye Liu <ye.liu@linux.dev> wrote:
> 
>> From: Ye Liu <liuye@kylinos.cn>
>>
>> err_name --> err_fd (fd failure case)
>> err_fd --> err_file (file failure case)
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/mm/memfd.c
>> +++ b/mm/memfd.c
>> @@ -475,22 +475,22 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(memfd_create,
>>  	fd = get_unused_fd_flags((flags & MFD_CLOEXEC) ? O_CLOEXEC : 0);
>>  	if (fd < 0) {
>>  		error = fd;
>> -		goto err_name;
>> +		goto err_fd;
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	file = alloc_file(name, flags);
>>  	if (IS_ERR(file)) {
>>  		error = PTR_ERR(file);
>> -		goto err_fd;
>> +		goto err_file;
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	fd_install(fd, file);
>>  	kfree(name);
>>  	return fd;
>>  
>> -err_fd:
>> +err_file:
>>  	put_unused_fd(fd);
>> -err_name:
>> +err_fd:
>>  	kfree(name);
>>  	return error;
>>  }
> 
> Not really, but I see what you mean.
> 
> "err_name" means "there was an error, so free the name". 
> 
> "err_fd" means "there was a problem with the fd".
> 
> 
> We tend to use the former convention.  See
> 
> 	grep err_free mm/*.c
> 
> The memfd_create() code would be better if it used "err_free_name" and
> "err_free_fd" to remove this ambiguity.
> 
> Someone who was feeling bored could go through
> 
> 	grep "goto err_" mm/*.c
> 
> and check that we use this convention uniformly ;)
> 
As suggested, I've reviewed error handling labels in mm/*.c.
"err_free_name" and "err_free_fd" would be better.
I will send patch v2 later using Subject: [PATCH v2] mm/memfd:
Clarify error handling labels in memfd_create ()    

Thanks，
Ye