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

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.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.