4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> commit 82c62fa0c49aa305104013cee4468772799bb391 upstream. I find the '.ifeq <expression>' directive to be confusing. Reading it quickly seems to suggest its opposite meaning, or that it's missing an argument. Improve readability by replacing all of its x86 uses with '.if <expression> == 0'. Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <[email protected]> Cc: Andrei Vagin <[email protected]> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/757da028e802c7e98d23fbab8d234b1063e161cf.1508516398.git.jpoim...@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]> --- arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S | 2 +- arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S | 2 +- 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S @@ -818,7 +818,7 @@ ENTRY(\sym) ASM_CLAC - .ifeq \has_error_code + .if \has_error_code == 0 pushq $-1 /* ORIG_RAX: no syscall to restart */ .endif --- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ ENTRY(early_idt_handler_array) # 24(%rsp) error code i = 0 .rept NUM_EXCEPTION_VECTORS - .ifeq (EXCEPTION_ERRCODE_MASK >> i) & 1 + .if ((EXCEPTION_ERRCODE_MASK >> i) & 1) == 0 pushl $0 # Dummy error code, to make stack frame uniform .endif pushl $i # 20(%esp) Vector number --- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S @@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ ENDPROC(start_cpu0) ENTRY(early_idt_handler_array) i = 0 .rept NUM_EXCEPTION_VECTORS - .ifeq (EXCEPTION_ERRCODE_MASK >> i) & 1 + .if ((EXCEPTION_ERRCODE_MASK >> i) & 1) == 0 UNWIND_HINT_IRET_REGS pushq $0 # Dummy error code, to make stack frame uniform .else
