nuttxpr commented on PR #15094: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/15094#issuecomment-2527959483
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the change and mentions testing with CI, it lacks crucial information. Here's what's missing: * **Detailed Summary:** The summary needs to be more descriptive. *Why* is removing `spin_lock_irqsave(NULL)` desirable? What specific problem does it solve? How does using a "small lock" achieve this? * **Impact:** The impact section is severely lacking. It only lists the affected file. All the "NO/YES" questions need to be answered explicitly, with explanations where necessary. For example, even if the answers are all "NO," the PR should state "Impact on user: NO," etc., for clarity. Since this deals with locking, there might be performance implications that should be discussed. * **Testing:** "ci" is not sufficient testing information. The requirement asks for logs *before* and *after* the change. What functionality was tested? What were the results? What target hardware (board:config) was used? What build host was used (OS, compiler version)? Simply stating "ci" doesn't demonstrate that the change works as intended or that no regressions were introduced. The PR needs to be significantly expanded to meet the requirements. Providing complete information is essential for proper review and integration. -- 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]
