[OT] GSoC: We still have two projects waiting for contributors
Hi NuttX users and developers, We have two projects that are still missing contributors: Device Tree and MicroROS. This is the listing of projects and contributors interested on each project: Rust integration on NuttX - Contributor: RUSHABH GALA NuttX NAND Flash Subsystem -- Contributor: Saurav Pal TinyGL support on NuttX --- Contributor: Victor Suarez Rovere Add X11 graphic support on NuttX using NanoX Contributor: Shijo George Device Tree support for NuttX - Contributor: ? Micro-ROS integration on NuttX -- Contributor: ? If you want to participate, please let me know. Each contributor needs to prepare the Proposal before April 2! It is important to remember that not all projects will be accepted by GSoC, because ASF has a limited slot (I don't know how many slots Google reserves for Apache). Best Regards, Alan
Re: stack issue when using littlefs (was Re: littlefs broken)
Yeah, mission accomplished! :-) Just watching The X-Files S02E16.. truth is out there and nothing is what it seems he he :-) :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 12:01 Sebastien Lorquet wrote: > Damn, that was a stack issue, but not in littlefs itself. or is it? idk. > > > This is a useful "bug" to know: Littlefs uses A LOT of stack. > > The issue was nsh. it is configured with a 2048 bytes stack by default, > and increasing it to 8192 did nothing, which lead me to a deep rabbit > hole at 1 am yesterday, and critiques that were not required this time. > > > However as in X-files, the truth was elsewhere. > > The boot task stack size is configured by CONFIG_INIT_STACKSIZE and not > by CONFIG_NSH_STACKSIZE > > Good to know... > > But this works on sim:nsh (I checked) so this problem cannot be detected > in CI. > > NuttX is fine this time, except the discrepancy of littlefs version > between cmake and make remains. > > Could the default stack size of tasks be customized per architecture in > kconfig files? here 2048 was ok for the sim (x86_64) but not for a stm32f4 > > Thanks for pointing me to the sim. > > Sebastien > > > Le 19/03/2024 à 07:50, Sebastien Lorquet a écrit : > > hi Tomek > > > > I'll have a try and report. > > > > Sebastien > > > > On 3/19/24 01:36, Tomek CEDRO wrote: > >> Hey there Sebastien! > >> > >> Sorry to hear that :-( > >> > >> Would it be possible to try those tests in SIM ? > >> > >> If yes are results the same? > >> > >> This could be included into CI tests with a SIM if that helps..? > >> > >> -- > >> CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >
stack issue when using littlefs (was Re: littlefs broken)
Damn, that was a stack issue, but not in littlefs itself. or is it? idk. This is a useful "bug" to know: Littlefs uses A LOT of stack. The issue was nsh. it is configured with a 2048 bytes stack by default, and increasing it to 8192 did nothing, which lead me to a deep rabbit hole at 1 am yesterday, and critiques that were not required this time. However as in X-files, the truth was elsewhere. The boot task stack size is configured by CONFIG_INIT_STACKSIZE and not by CONFIG_NSH_STACKSIZE Good to know... But this works on sim:nsh (I checked) so this problem cannot be detected in CI. NuttX is fine this time, except the discrepancy of littlefs version between cmake and make remains. Could the default stack size of tasks be customized per architecture in kconfig files? here 2048 was ok for the sim (x86_64) but not for a stm32f4 Thanks for pointing me to the sim. Sebastien Le 19/03/2024 à 07:50, Sebastien Lorquet a écrit : hi Tomek I'll have a try and report. Sebastien On 3/19/24 01:36, Tomek CEDRO wrote: Hey there Sebastien! Sorry to hear that :-( Would it be possible to try those tests in SIM ? If yes are results the same? This could be included into CI tests with a SIM if that helps..? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Re: littlefs broken - please read all mail past the stack dumps.
hi Tomek I'll have a try and report. Sebastien On 3/19/24 01:36, Tomek CEDRO wrote: Hey there Sebastien! Sorry to hear that :-( Would it be possible to try those tests in SIM ? If yes are results the same? This could be included into CI tests with a SIM if that helps..? -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
