nuttxpr commented on PR #14931: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14931#issuecomment-2497723424
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides some information, it lacks crucial details. Here's a breakdown of what's missing: * **Summary:** While it states *what* was changed, it doesn't clearly explain *why* this change is necessary beyond superficial similarity. What problem does using `spin_lock_init` solve? Does `spin_initialize` have a bug? Is this a performance improvement? Is it a stylistic change for consistency? The rationale is weak. The mention of "spin_lock and spin_unlock should be called in matching pairs" is irrelevant to the stated change. * **Impact:** Simply stating "spinlock" is insufficient. It needs to address *all* the impact points explicitly (user, build, hardware, documentation, security, compatibility). Even if the answer is "NO" for most, it needs to be stated. * **Testing:** "ci ostest" is not sufficient testing information. What specific tests were run? What were the *actual* logs before and *after* the change? The provided code blocks are empty. It also needs information on the build host and target used for testing. In short, the PR needs to be significantly more detailed and explicit to meet the NuttX requirements. It needs to provide a clear and compelling rationale for the change and demonstrate, with evidence, that the change works as intended and doesn't introduce regressions. -- 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]
