Message-ID: <54C6566B.6050205@sunrus.com.cn>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:59:55 +0800
From: Chen Gang S <gang.chen@sunrus.com.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <54C4DC4E.3080306@sunrus.com.cn>
	<CAFEAcA_hGO-R85yYXDU7eoC7FHF_v96y7Oh54SX9HXBAss6Vpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54C5672D.4080800@sunrus.com.cn>
	<CAFEAcA9mqzpHsWcyDdzBYDWdxsR1AoDy3akgHCaMUbjZ0zh=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9mqzpHsWcyDdzBYDWdxsR1AoDy3akgHCaMUbjZ0zh=0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user/syscall.c: Let all
 lock_user_struct() and unlock_user_struct() paired with each other
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: QEMU Trivial <qemu-trivial@nongnu.org>, Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 1/26/15 06:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 January 2015 at 21:59, Chen Gang S <gang.chen@sunrus.com.cn> wrote:
>> On 1/25/15 20:49, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Are you claiming that you've reviewed *all* the code in this
>>> file for mismatched lock/unlock calls? If so, it would be nice
>>> to say so explicitly in the commit message. If not, it would be
>>> nice if the commit message was clearer about what areas of the
>>> code it applied to. The code changes are correct, though.
>>>
>>
>> At present, I finished all lock_user_struct() and unlock_user_struct()
>> in "linux-user/syscall.c". For me, after this patch, they are all OK.
>>
>> But for all lock/unlock in "linux-user/syscall.c", for me, I am doubting
>> several areas, but I did not send patch for them:
>>
>>  - I need check them carefully again to be sure they are really issue:
>>
>>    Read the related code again and again, if I really treat it as an
>>    issue, I shall make related patch (and pass compiling, at least).
>>
>>  - I have no enough time resources on it:
> 
> That's fine. I'm definitely not asking you to do this work.

OK, thanks. :-)

> I would just like the commit message to be clear about the
> scope of the work the patch covers. If the patch is just "Fix
> mismatched lock/unlock calls in IPC struct conversion functions"
> then that's fine, but the commit message should say that. At the
> moment the commit message is very vague.
> 

OK, thanks.

I am not quite familiar with this file, so I describe the modification
by function name, e.g. lock_user_struct() and unlick_user_struct() in
the patch subject.

Welcome to help improve the patch comments. If necessary to send patch
v2, please let me know, I shall try.


Thanks.
-- 
Chen Gang

Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed