The image is initialized to NULL. Then, after calling kimage_alloc_init,
we can directly goto 'out' because at this time, the kimage_free will
determine whether image is a NULL pointer.

This will prepare for the subsequent patch to reset the variable in
kimage_free.

Signed-off-by: Qiang Ma <maqianga@uniontech.com>
---
 kernel/kexec.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kexec.c b/kernel/kexec.c
index 28008e3d462e..9bb1f2b6b268 100644
--- a/kernel/kexec.c
+++ b/kernel/kexec.c
@@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ static int do_kexec_load(unsigned long entry, unsigned long nr_segments,
 	unsigned long i;
 	int ret;
 
+	image = NULL;
+
 	/*
 	 * Because we write directly to the reserved memory region when loading
 	 * crash kernels we need a serialization here to prevent multiple crash
@@ -129,7 +131,7 @@ static int do_kexec_load(unsigned long entry, unsigned long nr_segments,
 
 	ret = kimage_alloc_init(&image, entry, nr_segments, segments, flags);
 	if (ret)
-		goto out_unlock;
+		goto out;
 
 	if (flags & KEXEC_PRESERVE_CONTEXT)
 		image->preserve_context = 1;
-- 
2.20.1

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:55:18 +0800 Qiang Ma <maqianga@uniontech.com> wrote:

> The image is initialized to NULL. Then, after calling kimage_alloc_init,
> we can directly goto 'out' because at this time, the kimage_free will
> determine whether image is a NULL pointer.
> 
> This will prepare for the subsequent patch to reset the variable in
> kimage_free.

There doesn't seem to be a benefit to applying this patch unless the
"subsequent patch" is also applied.  So wouldn't a two-patch series be
more appropriate?

在 2025/12/17 03:11, Andrew Morton 写道:
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 15:55:18 +0800 Qiang Ma <maqianga@uniontech.com> wrote:
>
>> The image is initialized to NULL. Then, after calling kimage_alloc_init,
>> we can directly goto 'out' because at this time, the kimage_free will
>> determine whether image is a NULL pointer.
>>
>> This will prepare for the subsequent patch to reset the variable in
>> kimage_free.
> There doesn't seem to be a benefit to applying this patch unless the
> "subsequent patch" is also applied.  So wouldn't a two-patch series be
> more appropriate?
>
Yes.
This patch is a preparation for the patch series "kexec: add kexec flag 
to control debug printing".
I plan to post it together with the v2 of this patch series.