On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:01 PM Sebastien Lorquet <sebast...@lorquet.fr> 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
FYI, sim doesn't really honor the user specified stack size. grep SIM_STACKSIZE_ADJUSTMENT if you are interested. > > 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
