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 <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
8c6ffba0ed
commit
228b82211b
|
@ -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); \
|
||||
} \
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue