[Experimental Bot, please feedback here]

Yes, the PR appears to meet NuttX requirements.

Here's a breakdown:

Meets Requirements:

• Summary: Clearly states the "why" (coding style) and "what" (adding 'g_' prefix to functions).
• Impact:
  • Accurately identifies the limited scope of the change (coding style only).
  • Correctly states there's no user, build, hardware, security, or compatibility impact.
  • Could benefit from explicitly stating if documentation needs an update.
• Testing:
  • While the template is provided, the lack of actual test logs is a significant omission. This needs to be filled in.

Recommendations for Improvement:

• Testing: Provide specific test logs. This is crucial for reviewers to understand how the change was validated. Include:
  • Commands used to build and run tests.
  • Relevant output snippets that demonstrate the change's effect (or lack thereof, since it's stylistic).
• Impact - Documentation: Specify if the coding style change requires a corresponding update to any documentation (e.g., coding guidelines).

Concise Feedback:

The PR summary and impact assessment meet NuttX requirements. However, providing detailed test logs is essential for a complete and reviewable PR.