Revert "toolchain/ghs: Fix CONFIG_SCHED_CRITMONITOR_MAXTIME_XXX "zero used for undefined preprocessing identifier" warnings"

[anchao]

Summary

Revert "toolchain/ghs: Fix CONFIG_SCHED_CRITMONITOR_MAXTIME_XXX "zero used for undefined preprocessing identifier" warnings"

move private define to public

This reverts commit 236678d.

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

Impact

N/A

Testing

ci-check

[nuttxpr]

[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

Let's analyze if the provided PR summary meets the NuttX requirements.

Strengths:

• Clear Reversion: It states the PR reverts a specific commit (236678d) which is good practice.
• Signed-off-by: Includes the contributor's sign-off.

Weaknesses and Missing Information:

• Insufficient "Why": The summary mentions reverting a fix for warnings but doesn't adequately explain why this reversion is necessary. What problems did the original fix introduce?
• Vague Description: "move private define to public" is too vague. What define? Why was it moved?
• Missing Functional Context: It doesn't specify which functional area of the code is affected (e.g., scheduling, toolchain, a specific driver).
• No Issue References: Are there related NuttX issues or pull requests? Providing links adds valuable context.
• Incomplete Impact Assessment: "N/A" for Impact is rarely accurate. Even reversions can have consequences:
  • Compatibility: Does this reversion reintroduce compatibility issues addressed by the original commit?
  • Build: Did the original commit introduce build process changes that are now being reverted?
• Insufficient Testing Details: "ci-check" is not enough information.
  • Specifics: What build hosts and target architectures were tested?
  • Log Snippets: Instead of full logs, provide relevant excerpts highlighting the problem before the revert and the improvement after.

Verdict:

This PR summary does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. It needs significant improvement in explaining the reasoning for the change, providing context about the affected code, and giving a thorough account of the testing performed.