[PATCH 3/3] x86/asm: Don't use the confusing '.ifeq' directive

[Josh Poimboeuf]

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 <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 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(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
index f6cdb7a1455e..846e84a1d1f7 100644
--- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
@@ -817,7 +817,7 @@ ENTRY(\sym)
 
 	ASM_CLAC
 
-	.ifeq \has_error_code
+	.if \has_error_code == 0
 	pushq	$-1				/* ORIG_RAX: no syscall to restart */
 	.endif
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S b/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
index 9ed3074d0d27..6e50f87765e5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_32.S
@@ -401,7 +401,7 @@ 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
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
index 99b1262c8a81..48875910607d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/head_64.S
@@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ 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
-- 
2.13.6