s390: Replace weird use of PTR_RET.

Saves repeating "(void __force *)__uptr" but it's less clear.  Using
the output of PTR_RET() to determine the error rather than just
testing IS_ERR() is odd.

For example, I *assume* __gptr_to_uptr() never returns NULL?  Because
the __ret would be 0 for the old code.  The new version is clearer, IMHO:
it would try to get_user() on that address.

If you hate this variant, I can just s/PTR_RET/PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO/ instead.

Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Acked-by: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>