On 25 January 2015 at 21:59, Chen Gang S <gang.c...@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. 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. thanks -- PMM
