nuttxpr commented on PR #15096:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15096#issuecomment-2528036167

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback 
here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   This PR appears to **partially** meet the NuttX requirements, but is missing 
crucial information.
   
   Here's a breakdown:
   
   **Strengths:**
   
   * **Clear Reason:** The reason for the change is stated concisely.
   * **Specific File Modified:**  The affected file (`s32k3xx_serial.c`) is 
identified.
   * **Testing Mention:** CI testing is mentioned, implying it passed.
   
   **Weaknesses:**
   
   * **Insufficient Detail in Summary:**  While the reason is given, there's no 
description of *how* `spin_lock_irqsave(NULL)` is being removed or what is 
replacing it.  What is a "small lock"?  This needs more explanation.
   * **Incomplete Impact Assessment:** Simply stating "s32k3xx_serial" is not 
sufficient.  The impact section needs to explicitly answer the YES/NO questions 
and provide descriptions where necessary.  For instance:
       * **Impact on user:**  Will the user experience any changes in 
functionality or behavior?
       * **Impact on hardware:** Is this change specific to the s32k3xx 
architecture? Will it affect other architectures?
       * **Impact on compatibility:** Are there any backward compatibility 
concerns?
       * **Impact on security:**  Does using a "small lock" instead of 
`spin_lock_irqsave(NULL)` have any security implications (e.g., potential for 
race conditions)?
   * **Missing Testing Details:** Saying "ci" is not enough.  Provide details 
about the CI environment (which CI system, build configuration, target 
hardware).  More importantly, there are **no testing logs** provided.  This is 
a critical requirement.  Show the output *before* and *after* the change to 
demonstrate that the change works as intended and hasn't introduced any 
regressions.  Even simple tests are better than nothing.
   
   
   **To make this PR compliant, it needs to:**
   
   1. **Expand the Summary:** Describe the mechanism used to replace 
`spin_lock_irqsave(NULL)`.  What kind of lock is used?  How does it work?  Why 
is it preferred?
   2. **Complete the Impact Assessment:**  Answer all the YES/NO questions in 
the Impact section with explanations where applicable.  Be specific about the 
effects of the change.
   3. **Provide Testing Logs:** Include actual log output demonstrating the 
behavior before and after the change. Be specific about the test environment 
and configuration.
   
   
   By addressing these points, the PR will be much stronger and more likely to 
be accepted.
   


-- 
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