Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kexec: fix error propagation in kexec_image_probe_default()

Hi Mike, thanks for review.

On 21/08/26 1:38 pm, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2026 at 12:48:15PM +0530, Mukesh Pilaniya wrote:
>> Hi Philipp,
>>
>> On 20/08/26 11:41 pm, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 20 2026, Philipp Rudo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Mukesh,
>>>> Hi Pratyush,
>>>>
>>>> having this patch makes sense. Personally I'd go with having a
>>>> switch-case rather than individual if-blocks. E.g.
>>>>
>>>> 	switch (ret) {
>>>> 		case 0:
>>>> 			image->fops = *fops;
>>>> 			return 0;
>>>> 		case -ENOEXEC:
>>>> 			continue;
>>>> 		default:
>>>> 			return ret;
>>>> 	}
>>>>
>>>> IMHO that is better readable and easier to extend in case other error
>>>> codes need special handling as well. But that is only my personal
>>>> opinion.
>>>
>>> Well, IMO both look roughly the same so I unless Mukesh prefers your
>>> version more, we can keep it as-is.
>>>
>> Thanks for the review. I agree the switch-case reads nicely, but since
>> the current version is functionally equivalent and already
>> reviewed, I'll keep it as-is to avoid re-spinning for a style change.
>> Happy to switch if you or Pratyush feel strongly about it.
> 
> I'd like to request another style change :)
> 
> In newer code we often use 'err' rather than 'ret', so it's more obvious
> what this variable about.
> 
> I don't feel strong about if or switch, but if you go with if, please don't
> compare to 0, use !err.
>

Makes sense, will rename ret to err and use !err in v3.

-- 
Regards,
Mukesh Pilaniya