[GitHub] findlayfeng commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
findlayfeng commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-nffs/pull/8#issuecomment-412261964 Ok I use it on a small memory device, only 32 blocks, at the time of testing I read and write a lot of files during the test, 64k 32k 3k, etc.

[GitHub] findlayfeng edited a comment on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
findlayfeng edited a comment on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-nffs/pull/8#issuecomment-412261964 Ok I use it on a small memory device, only 32 blocks, at the time of testing I read and write a lot of files during the test, 64k 32k 3k,

[GitHub] andrzej-kaczmarek commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
andrzej-kaczmarek commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-nffs/pull/8#issuecomment-412260987 this is not a bug, it's by design (see https://man.openbsd.org/queue.3) > Using any macro (except the various forms of insertion) on an

[GitHub] kartik9k commented on issue #1303: Program retention in Redbear Nano 2

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
kartik9k commented on issue #1303: Program retention in Redbear Nano 2 URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/issues/1303#issuecomment-412268918 Yep. It works! Thanks @adityaxavier This is an automated message from the

[GitHub] kartik9k closed issue #1303: Program retention in Redbear Nano 2

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
kartik9k closed issue #1303: Program retention in Redbear Nano 2 URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-core/issues/1303 This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on

[GitHub] findlayfeng commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro

2018-08-11 Thread GitBox
findlayfeng commented on issue #8: queue.h: fix SLIST_REMOVE macro URL: https://github.com/apache/mynewt-nffs/pull/8#issuecomment-412262213 I think it should be avoided as a whole because of a fatal error in the call to a NULL pointer.