The past form of RISCV_FENCE would cause checkpatch.pl to issue
error messages, the example is as follows:
ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
+#define __atomic_acquire_fence()       RISCV_FENCE(r,rw)
                                                     ^
fix the remaining of RISCV_FENCE.

Signed-off-by: Eric Chan <ericchancf@google.com>
---
 arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
index 4f4743d7440d..880b56d8480d 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
+++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h
@@ -19,19 +19,19 @@
 
 
 /* These barriers need to enforce ordering on both devices or memory. */
-#define __mb()		RISCV_FENCE(iorw,iorw)
-#define __rmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ir,ir)
-#define __wmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ow,ow)
+#define __mb()		RISCV_FENCE(iorw, iorw)
+#define __rmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ir, ir)
+#define __wmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ow, ow)
 
 /* These barriers do not need to enforce ordering on devices, just memory. */
-#define __smp_mb()	RISCV_FENCE(rw,rw)
-#define __smp_rmb()	RISCV_FENCE(r,r)
-#define __smp_wmb()	RISCV_FENCE(w,w)
+#define __smp_mb()	RISCV_FENCE(rw, rw)
+#define __smp_rmb()	RISCV_FENCE(r, r)
+#define __smp_wmb()	RISCV_FENCE(w, w)
 
 #define __smp_store_release(p, v)					\
 do {									\
 	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
-	RISCV_FENCE(rw,w);						\
+	RISCV_FENCE(rw, w);						\
 	WRITE_ONCE(*p, v);						\
 } while (0)
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ do {									\
 ({									\
 	typeof(*p) ___p1 = READ_ONCE(*p);				\
 	compiletime_assert_atomic_type(*p);				\
-	RISCV_FENCE(r,rw);						\
+	RISCV_FENCE(r, rw);						\
 	___p1;								\
 })
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ do {									\
  * instances the scheduler pairs this with an mb(), so nothing is necessary on
  * the new hart.
  */
-#define smp_mb__after_spinlock()	RISCV_FENCE(iorw,iorw)
+#define smp_mb__after_spinlock()	RISCV_FENCE(iorw, iorw)
 
 #include <asm-generic/barrier.h>
 
-- 
2.43.0.687.g38aa6559b0-goog

On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 10:40:00PM +0000, Eric Chan wrote:
> The past form of RISCV_FENCE would cause checkpatch.pl to issue
> error messages, the example is as follows:
> ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
> +#define __atomic_acquire_fence()       RISCV_FENCE(r,rw)

Not the "best" example, according to Samuel's feedback and the diff
below.  How about something like:

ERROR: space required after that ',' (ctx:VxV)
#10: FILE: arch/riscv/include/asm/barrier.h:28:
+#define __smp_mb()	RISCV_FENCE(rw,rw)


> -#define __mb()		RISCV_FENCE(iorw,iorw)
> -#define __rmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ir,ir)
> -#define __wmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ow,ow)
> +#define __mb()		RISCV_FENCE(iorw, iorw)
> +#define __rmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ir, ir)
> +#define __wmb()		RISCV_FENCE(ow, ow)

This would go away per my comment to 1/4.


From a less technical viewpoint and FYI, an unwritten rule of "working
with the Linux kernel community" is:

  Don't forget to keep people who spent time reviewing, or providing
  feedback to, your patch in the loop/in Cc: in your next iterations;
  they might be the only people who will be able to provide feedback
  /suggestions/help in your future life.

;-)

  Andrea

Hi Andrea,

Thank you very much for patiently reviewing and pointing out areas for improvement.
I also appreciate your kindness.
This is actually my second time submitting an upstream patch,
and the first time submitting multiple patches.
There are still many shortcomings, even though I carefully read the documentation
and refer other submissions before submitting my changes.

Once again, thank you for reviewing and providing such friendly suggestions.

Sincerely,
  Eric Chan