trace: replace all *_wo_note to *_notrace to make api define more approachable

[anchao]

Summary

trace: replace all *_wo_note to *_notrace to make api define more approachable

Follow the linux naming style:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/include/linux/preempt.h#L237-L242
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/include/linux/srcu.h#L221

Signed-off-by: chao an [email protected]

Impact

N/A

Testing

ci-check

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

No, this PR does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it provides a summary of the change and testing information, it lacks crucial details.

Here's a breakdown of what's missing:

• Insufficient Summary: While the summary explains what was changed, it doesn't fully explain why. Why is the Linux naming style preferred? What problem does the current naming create? What benefit does the new naming provide? This is critical for reviewers to understand the motivation behind the change.

• Impact Section is too brief: "N/A" is not acceptable. Even if there's minimal impact, each item should be addressed with a "NO" and a brief explanation justifying why there is no impact. For example, "Impact on user: NO - This is a purely internal naming change with no user-facing effects." This demonstrates that the impact has been considered. If the PR genuinely has no impact on any of these elements, that is rather uncommon. Changes to the naming of APIs are likely to have implications on documentation or backward compatibility as a bare minimum.

• Missing Testing Details: "ci-check" is insufficient. While CI is important, the PR needs to specify what was tested and how. Provide specific test cases or commands used. "Before" and "After" logs are required, even if they are identical (to demonstrate no regression). If the CI covers the testing completely, then link to the specific CI run and highlight the relevant parts that demonstrate the change works. Also include details on the build host and target used for testing.

In short, the PR needs to be more thorough and explicit in addressing all the requirements, even if the impact or changes are minimal. The goal is to provide enough information for reviewers to quickly understand and assess the change.

[xiaoxiang781216]

@anchao could you close this pr? #14578 change _wo_note to raw_ like Linux since this version not only bypass sched note but also sched lock.

[anchao]

@anchao could you close this pr? #14578 change _wo_note to raw_ like Linux since this version not only bypass sched note but also sched lock.

NO, I think no_trace has better semantics, and this suffix is ​​also used in Linux

[anchao]

@xiaoxiang781216 @hujun260 Where did you see raw_ without trace?

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/kernel/locking/lockdep.c#L5816-L5822

raw_spin_lock_irqsave
|
 ->_raw_spin_lock_irqsave
   |
    ->__raw_spin_lock_irqsave
      |
       ->spin_acquire
         |
          ->lock_acquire_exclusive
            |
             ->lock_acquire
               |
                ->trace_lock_acquire   <--  still here

[anchao]

@anchao could you close this pr? #14578 change _wo_note to raw_ like Linux since this version not only bypass sched note but also sched lock.

Never mind, anything is better than _wo_trace, I just don't like the name, raw_ or _notrace is all fine for me

[anchao]

let me close this PR