blk: rq_data_dir() should not return a boolean

rq_data_dir() returns either READ or WRITE (0 == READ, 1 == WRITE), not
a boolean value.

Now, admittedly the "!= 0" doesn't really change the value (0 stays as
zero, 1 stays as one), but it's not only redundant, it confuses gcc, and
causes gcc to warn about the construct

    switch (rq_data_dir(req)) {
        case READ:
            ...
        case WRITE:
            ...

that we have in a few drivers.

Now, the gcc warning is silly and stupid (it seems to warn not about the
switch value having a different type from the case statements, but about
_any_ boolean switch value), but in this case the code itself is silly
and stupid too, so let's just change it, and get rid of warnings like
this:

  drivers/block/hd.c: In function ‘hd_request’:
  drivers/block/hd.c:630:11: warning: switch condition has boolean value [-Wswitch-bool]
     switch (rq_data_dir(req)) {

The odd '!= 0' came in when "cmd_flags" got turned into a "u64" in
commit 5953316 ("block: make rq->cmd_flags be 64-bit") and is
presumably because the old code (that just did a logical 'and' with 1)
would then end up making the type of rq_data_dir() be u64 too.

But if we want to retain the old regular integer type, let's just cast
the result to 'int' rather than use that rather odd '!= 0'.

Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>

include/linux/blkdev.h

@@ -584,7 +584,7 @@ static inline void queue_flag_clear(unsigned int flag, struct request_queue *q)
 
 #define list_entry_rq(ptr)	list_entry((ptr), struct request, queuelist)
 
-#define rq_data_dir(rq)		(((rq)->cmd_flags & 1) != 0)
+#define rq_data_dir(rq)		((int)((rq)->cmd_flags & 1))
 
 /*
  * Driver can handle struct request, if it either has an old style