On 07/09/2016 09:29 AM, cheng...@emindsoft.com.cn wrote:
> -static inline int arch_validate_prot(unsigned long prot)
> +static inline bool arch_validate_prot(unsigned long prot)
> {
> if (prot & ~(PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC | PROT_SEM | PROT_SAO))
> - return 0;
> - if ((prot & PROT_SAO) && !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SAO))
> - return 0;
> - return 1;
> + return false;
> + return (prot & PROT_SAO) == 0 || cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SAO);
> }
> #define arch_validate_prot(prot) arch_validate_prot(prot)
Please don't do things like this. They're not obviously correct and
also have no obvious benefit. You also don't mention why you bothered
to alter the logical structure of these checks.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
