Hi Tom, On Sun, 19 Sept 2021 at 21:18, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 10:31, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > On Sat, 18 Sept 2021 at 07:16, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2021 at 03:34:54AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Sept 2021 at 12:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:40:32PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Provide a way for sandbox MMC to present data from a backing file. > > > > > > This > > > > > > allows a filesystem to be created on the host and easily served via > > > > > > an > > > > > > emulated mmc device. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.ch...@samsung.com> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > doc/device-tree-bindings/mmc/sandbox,mmc.txt | 18 ++++++++ > > > > > > drivers/mmc/sandbox_mmc.c | 46 > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++---- > > > > > > 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > create mode 100644 doc/device-tree-bindings/mmc/sandbox,mmc.txt > > > > > > > > > > As is, this breaks how I've always run pytests on sandbox. > > > > > > > > How does it break it? Do you get an error? The feature is supposed to > > > > be optional. > > > > > > Without doing anything to enable it, a few of the mmc unit tests failed. > > > I don't have the logs handy right now (I made that sometimes bad > > > decision to test 2 series at once, and now I'm waiting a bit more on > > > final feedback on the changes the timestamp cleanup needed before I push > > > that + the rest of this series). > > > > Oh dear, I will take a look and see what is going on there. > > The problem seems to me something going wrong with malloc(). I'm not > really sure what but I have seen it before. Basically the mallinfo > struct becomes corrupted somehow and from there everything goes > haywire. It actually happens today in normal operation, but somehow it > doesn't cause problems. I looked at it a while back and did not make > progress. > > Anyway I will see if I can dig into it again.
Actually i did figure this out. Partly is was a calculation issue but mostly it was not unmapping the memory after running, which causes problems when it is 25MB each time. Regards, Simon
