On 1/26/15 06:10, Peter Maydell wrote: > 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.
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
