Don't negate the 'mci.*' operands and use the logical AND operator to
simplify the return statement.

No functional changes intended.

Signed-off-by: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@linux.dev>
---
 arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c b/arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c
index 11f33243a23f..cbefd6bde104 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kernel/nmi.c
@@ -321,9 +321,7 @@ static bool notrace nmi_registers_valid(union mci mci)
 	cr2.reg = get_lowcore()->cregs_save_area[2];
 	if (cr2.gse && !mci.gs && !test_cpu_flag(CIF_MCCK_GUEST))
 		return false;
-	if (!mci.ms || !mci.pm || !mci.ia)
-		return false;
-	return true;
+	return mci.ms && mci.pm && mci.ia;
 }
 NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(nmi_registers_valid);
 
-- 
2.51.0

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 05:32:20PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote:
...
> @@ -321,9 +321,7 @@ static bool notrace nmi_registers_valid(union mci mci)
>  	cr2.reg = get_lowcore()->cregs_save_area[2];
>  	if (cr2.gse && !mci.gs && !test_cpu_flag(CIF_MCCK_GUEST))
>  		return false;
> -	if (!mci.ms || !mci.pm || !mci.ia)
> -		return false;
> -	return true;
> +	return mci.ms && mci.pm && mci.ia;
>  }
>  NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(nmi_registers_valid);

This change does not make the whole function readability better.

Thanks!

On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 06:52:11PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 05:32:20PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> ...
> > @@ -321,9 +321,7 @@ static bool notrace nmi_registers_valid(union mci mci)
> >  	cr2.reg = get_lowcore()->cregs_save_area[2];
> >  	if (cr2.gse && !mci.gs && !test_cpu_flag(CIF_MCCK_GUEST))
> >  		return false;
> > -	if (!mci.ms || !mci.pm || !mci.ia)
> > -		return false;
> > -	return true;
> > +	return mci.ms && mci.pm && mci.ia;
> >  }
> >  NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(nmi_registers_valid);
> 
> This change does not make the whole function readability better.

It actually would decrease readability since every if-statement tells
you one condition when registers are not valid. Negating the last one
makes this harder to understand.

But in general please do not send patches like this, which do not come
with a significant improvement.

On 9. Sep 2025, at 08:25, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 06:52:11PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>> 
>> This change does not make the whole function readability better.
> 
> It actually would decrease readability since every if-statement tells
> you one condition when registers are not valid. Negating the last one
> makes this harder to understand.

Ah my bad, that makes sense. I didn't take the whole function into
account.

Thanks,
Thorsten