arm/modifyreg: Use common lock to protect the modify address to ensure consistency

[anchao]

Summary

arm/modifyreg: Use common lock to protect the modify address to ensure consistency

Signed-off-by: chao an anchao@lixiang.com

Impact

N/A

Testing

ci-check

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No. This PR does not adequately meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of what was changed, it lacks crucial details.

Here's why:

• Insufficient Summary: "Use common lock to protect the modify address to ensure consistency" states the how, but not why. What problem does this solve? Was there a race condition? Data corruption? Which functional part of the code is impacted? Are there any related NuttX issues?
• Missing Impact Assessment: "N/A" is unacceptable. Even seemingly minor changes can have impacts. At a minimum, the author needs to justify why there's no impact. For example, the change likely impacts the arm architecture and potentially specific boards. This needs to be explicitly stated, even if the impact is deemed minimal. Security implications of using a lock should also be considered (e.g., potential for deadlocks).
• Inadequate Testing: "ci-check" is insufficient. While CI is important, it doesn't replace providing specific test results. The PR needs to demonstrate how the change was tested locally. What were the test cases? What were the observed outputs before and after the change? What host and target platforms were used for testing?

The author needs to significantly revise the PR description to meet the NuttX requirements. Simply put, more context and detail is needed to properly evaluate the change.