use small lock in following files

[hujun260]

Summary

use small lock in following files
arch/arm/src/armv7-a/arm_gicv2.c
arch/arm/src/imx6/imx_serial.c
arch/arm/src/imxrt/imxrt_flexcan.c
arch/xtensa/src/esp32/esp32_himem.c
arch/xtensa/src/esp32s3/esp32s3_himem.c

Impact

arch/arm/src/armv7-a/arm_gicv2.c
arch/arm/src/imx6/imx_serial.c
arch/arm/src/imxrt/imxrt_flexcan.c
arch/xtensa/src/esp32/esp32_himem.c
arch/xtensa/src/esp32s3/esp32s3_himem.c

Testing

ci

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

This PR appears to mostly meet the NuttX requirements but is lacking in key details.

Here's a breakdown:

Missing/Insufficient Information:

• Summary: While it lists the files changed, it doesn't explain why these changes are necessary. What problem does using a "small lock" solve? Is it a performance improvement? A bug fix? What was the original locking mechanism? This section needs more context. There's no mention of a related issue.
• Impact: Simply repeating the list of files modified doesn't constitute an impact assessment. Consider each point in the template:
  • New Feature? Existing Feature Changed? Clarify this.
  • Impact on User: Will the user notice any functional differences?
  • Impact on Build: Likely no, but state it explicitly.
  • Impact on Hardware: Specify the affected architectures (ARMv7-A, IMX6, IMXRT, ESP32, ESP32-S3).
  • Impact on Documentation: If no documentation changes are needed, state that clearly.
  • Impact on Security: Are there any potential security implications of changing the locking mechanism? This needs careful consideration.
  • Impact on Compatibility: Are there any backward compatibility concerns?
• Testing: "ci" is insufficient. Provide actual test logs or at least a summary of the tests performed and their results. What functionality was tested? What were the results before and after the change? What build hosts and target platforms were used for testing? Be specific.

How to improve this PR:

1. Expand the Summary: Explain the motivation for the change. What problem is being solved? What were the drawbacks of the previous locking mechanism? What benefits does the small lock provide (e.g., reduced overhead, improved performance, etc.)? Link a related issue if one exists.

2. Detail the Impact: Address each impact point specifically. Even if the answer is "NO," explicitly state it. For the "hardware" impact, be specific about the affected architectures and boards. If there are security implications, explain them thoroughly.

3. Provide Meaningful Testing Information: "ci" suggests Continuous Integration testing, but reviewers need more information. At minimum, summarize the tests performed, the expected results, and the actual results on each tested platform. Ideally, include snippets of relevant log output demonstrating the change's effect. Specify the build host and target environments used for testing.

By addressing these points, the PR will be much more complete and easier for reviewers to assess.