nuttxpr commented on PR #15764: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15764#issuecomment-2635916362
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the basic NuttX requirements, but more information is needed for a thorough review. **Strengths:** * **Clear Summary:** The summary explains the *what* (using a smaller lock) and *why* (to protect tickless resources). * **Impactful Changes:** The list of files modified clearly shows the scope of the change across multiple architectures. * **CI Testing:** Mentioning CI is good, but needs more details (see below). **Weaknesses:** * **Missing "How":** The summary lacks a description of *how* the smaller lock is implemented. What type of lock is used? How does it differ from the previous locking mechanism? * **Impact Under-Specified:** While the list of files is helpful, it doesn't explain the impact. Will this change improve performance, reduce memory usage, or fix a bug? Even "NO" should be stated explicitly for each impact category. Consider the following for each impact area: * **User Impact:** Unlikely, but should be explicitly stated. (NO) * **Build Impact:** Probably NO, but should be confirmed. * **Hardware Impact:** Likely NO unless the lock implementation is hardware-dependent, but should be confirmed. * **Documentation Impact:** Maybe NO, but if the locking mechanism changes significantly, documentation updates might be needed. * **Security Impact:** Potentially YES if the previous locking was flawed. This needs thorough explanation. * **Compatibility Impact:** Hopefully NO, but needs to be addressed directly. * **Insufficient Testing Information:** Simply stating "CI" is not enough. Which CI platforms were used? What specific tests were run? Ideally, provide links to CI logs or summarized results. Since this involves locking, testing should include scenarios where multiple tasks contend for tickless resources. The example log sections are empty. **Recommendation:** The PR needs more detail to be properly evaluated. Address the weaknesses outlined above to provide a comprehensive understanding of the changes and their impact. A good PR saves reviewers time and increases the chances of quick acceptance. -- 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: commits-unsubscr...@nuttx.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org
