nuttxpr commented on PR #16283: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/16283#issuecomment-2837424604
[**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues) Yes, this PR appears to meet the NuttX requirements, although some sections could be more detailed. Here's a breakdown: **Strengths:** * **Clear explanation of the problem:** The summary clearly identifies the bug caused by the union in `struct work_s` and how the proposed change fixes it by removing the union. * **Rationale for change is well-justified:** Improving robustness by removing reliance on the order of struct members within a union is a valid reason. * **Addresses potential follow-up:** Acknowledging the increased size of `work_s` and linking a related optimization PR is good practice. * **Testing performed:** Ostest in sim:nsh confirms testing was done, although more detail would be beneficial. **Weaknesses/Areas for Improvement:** * **Summary - What functional part is changed?:** While it mentions `work_cancel()`, it could be more specific about which part of the work queue subsystem is affected. e.g., "The work queue cancellation logic within the kernel." * **Summary - Related NuttX Issue:** A link to the relevant NuttX issue is missing. * **Impact - User Impact:** While it implies no direct user impact, it would be beneficial to explicitly state "NO". * **Impact - Build Impact:** It mentions a size increase, but doesn't explicitly say "YES" and describe the impact in detail (e.g., increased memory usage). Quantifying the size increase would be helpful. * **Impact - Other Impacts:** All other impacts should explicitly state "NO" if there are none. * **Testing - More Detail Required:** "Ostest in sim:nsh" is too vague. Specify the exact ostest cases run and provide snippets of the relevant log output before and after the change. Simply stating "passed" is not sufficient. Showing concrete evidence of the problem before and the solution after is crucial. Include the host operating system and compiler version used for the build. **Recommendation:** The PR is on the right track, but needs minor revisions to fully comply with the NuttX requirements. Specifically, add the missing issue reference, be more explicit about impacted areas (even if the answer is "NO"), and significantly improve the testing section by providing detailed information about the tests performed and their results. -- 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
