qemu-trivial
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] linux-user/syscall.c: Let all lock_user_struc


From: Chen Gang S
Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [PATCH] linux-user/syscall.c: Let all lock_user_struct() and unlock_user_struct() paired with each other
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 06:09:13 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

Thank you for your work, too.

Next month, I shall start tile qemu, I guess, for coding, I shall start
from linux-user (which is mainly for cpu emulation).

 - For each patch, I should make at least a valuable change, and pass
   related test.

 - Each month, I should make 3 patches at least.

 - Hope I can finish tile for linux-user within 2015-06-30: finish all
   tile cpu common instructions emulation, and pass all related test.

Welcome any ideas, suggestions, and completions, e.g.

 - Is what I said above really correct (e.g. is linux-user really mainly
   for cpu emulation)?.

 - For each patch, are there additional information, requirements or
   suggestions which I should notice about?

 - If I can finish 3 patches per month, is it possible to finish tile
   cpu common instructions emulation for linux-user within 2015-06-30?


Thanks.

On 1/28/15 22:27, Riku Voipio wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> First of all, thanks Chen for taking time to improve the linux-user
> codebase in qemu!
> 
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 03:01:52PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 26 January 2015 at 14:59, Chen Gang S <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 1/26/15 06:10, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
>> In a big file I think it's often more useful to describe the
>> functions which are being changed. My suggested subject would be:
>  
>> "Fix mismatched lock/unlock calls in IPC struct conversion functions"
>  
>> Riku can decide if he wants a v2 or will just fix it up as he
>> applies it to his linux-user tree.
> 
> No need for v2, I've change the title in my tree.
> 
> Riku
> 
> 

-- 
Chen Gang

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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]