Use a no-op order manager for in-order queues

[ndgrigorian]

As pointed out in #2293, the SequentialOrderManager construct may not bring any benefit with in-order queues, and, with an in-order queue, an extension/function implementation has to insert events into the SequentialOrderManager if using library calls which also use SequentialOrderManager unnecessarily.

To remedy this, this PR proposes adding a _NoOpOrderManager implementation class that SequentialOrderManager can use when passed an in-order queue.

The returned object isn't cached, as it's mostly a no-op. Notably, the _NoOpOrderManager stores the in-order queue that it was given, so that wait() can call q.wait() so that the method is still meaningful.

• Have you provided a meaningful PR description?
• Have you added a test, reproducer or referred to an issue with a reproducer?
• Have you tested your changes locally for CPU and GPU devices?
• Have you made sure that new changes do not introduce compiler warnings?
• Have you checked performance impact of proposed changes?
• Have you added documentation for your changes, if necessary?
• Have you added your changes to the changelog?
• If this PR is a work in progress, are you opening the PR as a draft?

[github-actions]

View rendered docs @ https://intelpython.github.io/dpctl/pulls/2299/index.html

[coveralls]

coverage: 75.595% (+0.1%) from 75.476% — no-op-order-manager-for-in-order-queues into master

[ndgrigorian]

@antonwolfy @vlad-perevezentsev
this is ready for review, since this impacts order manager, it will impact all of tensor and dpnp. On my tests so far, I have seen no issues, but I will keep trying.

Please experiment with it as well