nuttxpr commented on PR #15234: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15234#issuecomment-2547823131
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) This PR appears to minimally meet the requirements, but could be significantly improved. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Summary:** Provides a brief description of the change. The inclusion of related PRs is helpful context. * **Testing:** Indicates CI testing was performed. **Weaknesses:** * **Summary:** Lacks crucial details. *Why* was the spinlock name changed? Was it causing issues (bug fix)? Is it part of a larger refactoring? What part of the code uses this spinlock (RTC driver, a specific subsystem)? How does the change *work*? (Probably just a simple rename, but it should be stated explicitly). Linking a related issue would be beneficial. * **Impact:** Simply stating "RELEASE" is insufficient. While this implies a potential impact on users, it's not descriptive. All the other impact categories (build, hardware, documentation, security, compatibility) are left unaddressed. Assuming they are all "NO", they should be explicitly stated as such for clarity. If any are "YES", a description is mandatory. * **Testing:** "CI" is too vague. Specify which CI platforms were used (e.g., GitHub Actions, specific architectures). Providing snippets of relevant log output *before* and *after* the change is strongly recommended to demonstrate the fix or improvement. Including details about the local testing environment (host OS, compiler, target architecture/board) is essential for reproducibility. **Recommendation:** The PR author should expand on all sections, providing specific details and addressing all points in the template. A more complete example based on the given information: ``` ## Summary This change renames the global spinlock `g_lock` to `g_rtc_lock` to clarify its purpose and prevent potential naming conflicts in the future. The original name was too generic and could lead to confusion or unintended locking behavior if other parts of the system used a global lock with the same name. This change is part of an effort to improve the RTC driver's code clarity and maintainability. Related PRs: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15220 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15221 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15222 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15225 https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15229 (Ideally, a related issue would be linked here if one exists.) ## Impact * Is new feature added? NO * Is existing feature changed? YES (The internal implementation of the RTC driver is changed, but the user-facing API remains the same) * Impact on user: NO * Impact on build: NO * Impact on hardware: NO * Impact on documentation: NO (Although updating the internal documentation with the new lock name would be a good practice) * Impact on security: NO * Impact on compatibility: NO * Anything else to consider? This change affects the RTC driver. ## Testing I confirm that changes are verified on local setup and works as intended: * Build Host(s): Linux (Ubuntu 20.04), x86_64, GCC 9.4.0 * Target(s): sim:qemu-arm Testing logs before change: ``` (Show relevant log output demonstrating the issue or the ambiguity caused by the old lock name. For example, logs showing multiple drivers potentially accessing the same global lock) ``` Testing logs after change: ``` (Show relevant log output demonstrating that the RTC driver now uses the new lock name and functions correctly.) ``` CI tested on GitHub Actions: * qemu-arm * stm32f4discovery (example - specify the actual target(s)) ``` (Ideally, include snippets of relevant CI logs here as well) ``` ``` By providing more complete information, the PR author makes it easier for reviewers to understand the change, assess its impact, and verify its correctness. This leads to faster reviews and higher quality contributions. -- 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]
