From 228b82211b47b597fa75dff2ac146b40eaaddf18 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rusty Russell Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 11:21:32 +0930 Subject: [PATCH] s390: Replace weird use of PTR_RET. Saves repeating "(void __force *)__uptr" but it's less clear. Using the output of PTR_RET() to determine the error rather than just testing IS_ERR() is odd. For example, I *assume* __gptr_to_uptr() never returns NULL? Because the __ret would be 0 for the old code. The new version is clearer, IMHO: it would try to get_user() on that address. If you hate this variant, I can just s/PTR_RET/PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO/ instead. Cc: Christian Borntraeger Cc: Martin Schwidefsky Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell Acked-by: Heiko Carstens --- arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h | 12 ++++++++---- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h index 302e0e5..99d789e 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ static inline void __user *__gptr_to_uptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ({ \ __typeof__(gptr) __uptr = __gptr_to_uptr(vcpu, gptr, 1);\ int __mask = sizeof(__typeof__(*(gptr))) - 1; \ - int __ret = PTR_RET((void __force *)__uptr); \ + int __ret; \ \ - if (!__ret) { \ + if (IS_ERR((void __force *)__uptr)) { \ + __ret = PTR_ERR((void __force *)__uptr); \ + } else { \ BUG_ON((unsigned long)__uptr & __mask); \ __ret = get_user(x, __uptr); \ } \ @@ -55,9 +57,11 @@ static inline void __user *__gptr_to_uptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ({ \ __typeof__(gptr) __uptr = __gptr_to_uptr(vcpu, gptr, 1);\ int __mask = sizeof(__typeof__(*(gptr))) - 1; \ - int __ret = PTR_RET((void __force *)__uptr); \ + int __ret; \ \ - if (!__ret) { \ + if (IS_ERR((void __force *)__uptr)) { \ + __ret = PTR_ERR((void __force *)__uptr); \ + } else { \ BUG_ON((unsigned long)__uptr & __mask); \ __ret = put_user(x, __uptr); \ } \ -- 2.7.4