bt_atomic: use small lock in wireless/bluetooth/bt_atomic.c

[hujun260]

Summary

bt_atomic: use atomic macro to replace wireless/bluetooth/bt_atomic.c

Impact

bt

Testing

ci

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR description does not adequately meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides some information, it's far too brief and lacks crucial details. Here's a breakdown of what's missing:

• Summary: "bt_atomic: use small lock in wireless/bluetooth/bt_atomic.c" is a title, not a summary. It states what the change is, but not why it's necessary, how it works, or its potential impact. There's no mention of related issues.

• Impact: Simply stating "bt" is insufficient. It needs to specify the impact on users, build process, hardware, documentation, security, and compatibility. Even if the answer is "NO" for most of these, it should be explicitly stated.

• Testing: "ci" suggests it relies on Continuous Integration testing. While CI is important, it's insufficient on its own. The PR needs to provide specific details about the local testing environment (host OS, compiler, target architecture, board) and show the testing logs before and after the change, demonstrating the improvement or fix. Simply stating "ci" doesn't provide evidence of proper testing.

To be acceptable, the PR description needs significant expansion, providing the missing context and details as outlined in the NuttX requirements.

[anchao]

Emm... I might remove bt_atomic.c and replace all of them with stdatomic's API, but this change is also fine for me.

[xiaoxiang781216]

Emm... I might remove bt_atomic.c and replace all of them with stdatomic's API, but this change is also fine for me.

Yes, it's better to remove bt_atomic.c and change bt_atomic to macro to avoid the function invocation cost.

[xiaoxiang781216]

change to macro

[hujun260]

done