nuttxpr commented on PR #14766:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14766#issuecomment-2474026298

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   Yes, this PR appears to meet the basic NuttX requirements, but it's missing 
some crucial details.  While it addresses the core components of the summary 
and impact, it lacks the specificity needed for a thorough review.  Here's a 
breakdown of what's missing and how to improve it:
   
   **Missing Information in Summary:**
   
   * **What functional part of the code is being changed?** Be precise.  e.g., 
"The interrupt handling logic within the I2C driver for the ICJX expander."
   * **How does the change exactly work?**  Don't just say interrupts are 
disabled and re-enabled.  *Where* are they disabled and re-enabled?  What 
specific functions or lines of code are modified? What mechanism is used to 
disable/enable (e.g., critical section, spinlock, etc.)?
   * **Related Issues:**  If this fixes a reported bug or implements a 
requested feature, link the relevant issue(s).  Even if it doesn't directly 
address an existing issue, linking a related one can provide valuable context.
   
   **Missing Information in Impact:**
   
   * **Expand on "Fixes potential assertion..."**:  Explain *why* the assertion 
could occur. What was the race condition? This helps reviewers understand the 
problem and the effectiveness of the solution.
   * **Be explicit about all impact categories:**  Even if the answer is "NO," 
state it explicitly for all categories (user, build, hardware, documentation, 
security, compatibility).  If the answer is "YES," provide details.  For 
example, if there's no user impact, say "Impact on user: NO."
   * **Consider backward compatibility:** Does this change affect any existing 
users of the ICJX driver?
   
   **Missing Information in Testing:**
   
   * **Build Host(s):**  Provide specifics.  "Linux, Ubuntu 20.04, GCC 9.4.0"
   * **Target(s):**  Be precise. "SAMV71-Xplained Ultra, config: default" (or 
whatever your configuration is)
   * **Testing Logs:**  The provided logs are placeholders. Include actual logs 
demonstrating the issue before the change and the corrected behavior after the 
change. Show that the assertion no longer occurs.  If the logs are very long, 
consider providing snippets of the relevant parts or linking to a separate file.
   
   
   **Example of Improved PR Description:**
   
   ```
   ## Summary
   
   This PR fixes a potential assertion in the interrupt handling logic within 
the I2C driver for the ICJX expander.  The assertion could occur if two 
interrupts were triggered in close succession. This was due to a race condition 
where a second interrupt could attempt to queue a worker thread while the 
worker was already processing a previous interrupt.  The fix disables 
interrupts before entering the interrupt worker's processing loop and 
re-enables them after the loop completes.  This is achieved by using a critical 
section around the processing loop.  This ensures that no other interrupts can 
interfere with the worker while it is handling pending interrupts.
   
   Related Issue: [If applicable, link to a NuttX issue]
   
   ## Impact
   
   * Is new feature added? NO
   * Is existing feature changed? YES (Fixes a bug in the ICJX expander driver)
   * Impact on user: NO
   * Impact on build: NO
   * Impact on hardware: YES (Specific to boards using the ICJX expander)
   * Impact on documentation: NO
   * Impact on security: YES (The assertion failure could potentially lead to 
unpredictable behavior.)
   * Impact on compatibility: NO (Backward compatible with existing ICJX driver 
usage)
   
   ## Testing
   
   I confirm that changes are verified on local setup and works as intended:
   * Build Host(s): Linux, Ubuntu 20.04, GCC 9.4.0
   * Target(s): SAMV71-Xplained Ultra, config: default
   
   Testing logs before change:
   
   ```
   [relevant log snippets showing the assertion failure]
   ```
   
   Testing logs after change:
   
   ```
   [relevant log snippets showing the corrected behavior, demonstrating that 
the assertion no longer occurs]
   ```
   ```
   
   By providing these additional details, you make it much easier for reviewers 
to understand, evaluate, and ultimately merge your PR.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to