On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 8:01 PM 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
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 i
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 yes
