linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs:inode: initialize 'error' variable at definition to reduce code redundancy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aEh-wRb_j5seV2Iz@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 20:51:45 +0200
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: Hu Song <husong@...inos.cn>
Cc: muchun.song@...ux.dev, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs:inode: initialize 'error' variable at
 definition to reduce code redundancy

On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 02:56:15PM +0800, Hu Song wrote:
> Initialize the error variable to -ENOMEM at definition in
> init_hugetlbfs_fs().This removes the need for a separate
> initialization later and makes the code slightly more concise,
> while still preserving the original logic.
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hu Song <husong@...inos.cn>
> ---
>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 3 +--
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index e4de5425838d..390cddd5872c 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -1600,7 +1600,7 @@ static int __init init_hugetlbfs_fs(void)
>  {
>  	struct vfsmount *mnt;
>  	struct hstate *h;
> -	int error;
> +	int error = -ENOMEM;
>  	int i;
>  
>  	if (!hugepages_supported()) {
> @@ -1608,7 +1608,6 @@ static int __init init_hugetlbfs_fs(void)
>  		return -ENOTSUPP;
>  	}
>  
> -	error = -ENOMEM;
>  	hugetlbfs_inode_cachep = kmem_cache_create("hugetlbfs_inode_cache",
>  					sizeof(struct hugetlbfs_inode_info),
>  					0, SLAB_ACCOUNT, init_once);

Uhmf, I do not know. 

Often, we tend to use those declarations in order to mark what error
code we will return if we fail the next operationg. E.g:

  error = -ENOMEM
  if (try_to_allocate)
    goto out;
 
  error = -EINVAL
  if (check_params)
    goto out;
 
 out:
  return error

No really strong opinion here, but I'd vote for leave it as is?


-- 
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs