libc: modify open,close... to _NX_OPEN,_NX_CLOSE

[W-M-R]

Summary

libc: modify open,close... to _NX_OPEN,_NX_CLOSE

Impact

None

Testing

None

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the changes, it lacks crucial details. Specifically:

• Insufficient Summary: "modify open,close... to _NX_OPEN,_NX_CLOSE" is vague. Why was this change necessary? What problem does it solve? What is the functional impact? How does using _NX_ prefixed functions change the behavior?
• Incomplete Impact Assessment: Claiming "None" for impact is highly unlikely. At minimum, this change affects compatibility. Does it break existing code? Does it improve portability? The impact assessment needs to be thoroughly considered and documented.
• Missing Testing Information: "None" for testing is unacceptable. Every PR requires testing. What platforms was this tested on (host and target)? What tests were run? What were the results? Providing "before" and "after" logs, even if they appear identical, demonstrates that testing was performed.

This PR needs significant revision before it can be considered. The author needs to provide specific details in each section to demonstrate that the change is well-motivated, thoroughly tested, and doesn't introduce unintended consequences.

[xiaoxiang781216]

@W-M-R Please fix:

Error: /home/runner/work/nuttx/nuttx/nuttx/libs/libc/lzf/lzf_d.c:5:80: error: Long line found

[acassis]

@W-M-R I don't remember why these changes were made. Is it necessary to separate kernel from user space APIs?

[W-M-R]

#14651

@W-M-R I don't remember why these changes were made. Is it necessary to separate kernel from user space APIs?

Yes, kernel mode and user mode need to use different APIs

[W-M-R]

Sorry, I accidentally disabled this patch.

[W-M-R]

The automatic test failed. Please give me some time to check it carefully.

[xiaoxiang781216]

need rebase to fix the conflict