[PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok(addr, size))
> +#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok((void __user *)addr, size))

Can we just kill these off insted of letting themm obsfucate the code?