Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/20] bpf: Prepare for an exception cleanup table before the CFG walk

[Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 2026-09-22 at 20:07 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote:

...

> > > diff --git a/kernel/bpf/exception.c b/kernel/bpf/exception.c
> > > index 4b3ac93e98c1..67af78baa558 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/bpf/exception.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/bpf/exception.c
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,66 @@ static bool insn_is_unwind_resume(const struct bpf_insn *insn)
> > >   	       insn->imm == bpf_unwind_resume_id[0];
> > >   }
> > >   
> > > +static void cleanup_mark_kfunc_sites(struct bpf_verifier_env *env)
> > Nit: the 'cleanup_' prefix in function names triggers me a bit,
> >       as it is usually used when there are some cleanup actions are
> >       taken by the function. Maybe drop or reword it a bit?
> 
> Yes, I will try to avoid cleanup_ prefix then. For static functions,
> I will not have cleanup_ prefix or may use exc_ prefix.
> For global function, I will bpf_cleanup_ as prefix.

Yonghong, a wider naming question: should we use cleanup/cleanup_pad
or landing/landing_pad to name these things?
It appears both LLVM and GCC use landing pad.