In D54857#1254906, @markj wrote:

In D54857#1254686, @doonbsd_gmail.com wrote:

So, this can't be merged now? Shall I drop that change and update new diff?

No, it's ok as-is. Indeed, style(9) doesn't require the blank line, but most of the other wrappers in this file have one so we might as well stay consistent.

So, this can't be merged now? Shall I drop that change and update new diff?

In D54856#1254487, @markj wrote:

I agree that we should keep arm64 consistent at the very least. I tend to think that asserting that a pointer is non-NULL is silly, but on second thought a patch that just removes assertions is also a bit silly. So I'd rather just leave these alone.

Hold on. I just found one style problem. There must be a empty line after start curly brace when the function has single line body.

riscv: Add an inline function hfence_gvma() for hfence.gvma instruction.

Moved hfence_gvma from atomic.h to cpufunc.h and changed it to an inline function.

Agreed. I will update the patch.

In D54856#1254100, @jrtc27 wrote:

Well it is where it is because (a) asserting in vmmops_init is pointless with M_WAITOK as you say (b) vm_init is in a separate translation unit so in some world views should treat vmmops_init as a black box, and is therefore asserting that it never fails. And this pattern is copied from arm64, so we should keep the two consistent, whichever way it goes.