in smp_call handle we only change TCB_FLAG_CPU_LOCKED bit of tcb->flag

[hujun260]

Summary

in smp_call handle we only change TCB_FLAG_CPU_LOCKED bit of tcb->flag
change unrelated changes to tcb->flag fields, may cause error

Impact

smp call

Testing

ci ostest

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. The summary is insufficiently detailed. It mentions a problem and a solution, but doesn't explain why the other changes to tcb->flag are problematic or what the actual implemented change is. It needs to be more descriptive and answer all the questions posed in the template. The Impact section is far too brief and doesn't address any of the specific questions. The Testing section provides no useful information. It needs to specify the host and target details along with actual log output, not just a reference to "ci ostest."

Here's a breakdown of what's missing:

Summary:

• Missing: What specific "unrelated changes" were happening? Why are they a problem (e.g., race conditions, incorrect state, etc.)? How does the change prevent these issues? Be explicit.

Impact:

• Missing all details: Needs to answer all the "Impact on..." questions with specific yes/no answers and descriptions where applicable. Even if the answer is "no," explicitly state it. For example: "Impact on user: NO."

Testing:

• Missing vital information: "ci ostest" is not sufficient. Provide details about the build host (OS, CPU architecture, compiler version). Provide details about the target (architecture, board, configuration). Most importantly, provide actual log output demonstrating the issue before the change and the corrected behavior after the change. Don't just say logs exist; show them.