[PR] arch/intel64: optimise context switch [nuttx]

["hujun260 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

hujun260 opened a new pull request, #14245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14245

   
   ## Summary
   We save interrupted TCB state on tcb->xcp.regs not interrupt stack now which allows us to remove x86_64_savestate() from up_switch_context() and other places.
   
   ## Impact
   x86_64
   
   ## Testing
   ostest
   


-- 
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-unsubscribe@nuttx.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

Re: [PR] arch/intel64: optimise context switch [nuttx]

["xiaoxiang781216 (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

xiaoxiang781216 merged PR #14245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14245


-- 
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-unsubscribe@nuttx.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org

Re: [PR] arch/intel64: optimise context switch [nuttx]

["nuttxpr (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>]

nuttxpr commented on PR #14245:
URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/14245#issuecomment-2410365307

   [**\[Experimental Bot, please feedback here\]**](https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Aapache%2Fnuttx+13552&type=issues)
   
   
   
   **No, the PR does not meet all the NuttX requirements.**
   
   **Missing Information:**
   
   * **Summary:**
       * Lacks a clear explanation of *why* the change is necessary. What problem does it solve?
       * Needs more detail on *how* the change works. How is the TCB state saved? Why is it beneficial to remove `x86_64_savestate()`?
       * Should include any relevant issue references. 
   * **Impact:**
       * While it mentions "x86_64", it needs to explicitly answer each impact question (user, build, hardware, etc.). 
       * Even if the answer is "NO", state it explicitly for clarity.
   * **Testing:**
       * "ostest" is not specific enough. List the exact build hosts and targets used for testing.
       * Provide actual testing logs before and after the change, demonstrating the problem and the solution.
   
   **Recommendations:**
   
   1. **Expand the Summary:** Clearly articulate the problem, the solution, and its benefits.
   2. **Address all Impact points:**  Answer each question explicitly, even if it's "NO impact."
   3. **Provide detailed Testing information:**  Specify build environments, target platforms, and include relevant log snippets. 
   


-- 
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-unsubscribe@nuttx.apache.org

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org