Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/3] bpf: introduce pinnable bpf_link abstraction

[Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 02:39:46PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>  
> +int bpf_link_new_fd(struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> +	return anon_inode_getfd("bpf-link", &bpf_link_fops, link, O_CLOEXEC);
> +}
...
> -	tr_fd = anon_inode_getfd("bpf-tracing-prog", &bpf_tracing_prog_fops,
> -				 prog, O_CLOEXEC);
> +	tr_fd = anon_inode_getfd("bpf-tracing-link", &bpf_link_fops,
> +				 &link->link, O_CLOEXEC);
...
> -	tp_fd = anon_inode_getfd("bpf-raw-tracepoint", &bpf_raw_tp_fops, raw_tp,
> -				 O_CLOEXEC);
> +	tp_fd = anon_inode_getfd("bpf-raw-tp-link", &bpf_link_fops,
> +				 &raw_tp->link, O_CLOEXEC);

I don't think different names are strong enough reason to open code it.
I think bpf_link_new_fd() should be used in all cases.