Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Heap Trace Standalone] increase Kconfig max stack depth (IDFGH-10245) #11508

Conversation

chipweinberger
Copy link
Contributor

@chipweinberger chipweinberger commented May 26, 2023

Increase max stack depth from 10 -> 32

10 is too small a maximum, and is preventing me from knowing who is calling the function that is leaking.

@chipweinberger chipweinberger force-pushed the user/chip/heap-trace-standalone-stack-size branch 2 times, most recently from 6e2faaa to d1977e7 Compare May 26, 2023 03:43
@chipweinberger chipweinberger force-pushed the user/chip/heap-trace-standalone-stack-size branch from d1977e7 to bf7020c Compare May 26, 2023 03:50
@chipweinberger
Copy link
Contributor Author

chipweinberger commented May 26, 2023

Please add this to v5.1 =)

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added the Status: Opened Issue is new label May 26, 2023
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title [Heap Trace Standalone] increase Kconfig max stack depth [Heap Trace Standalone] increase Kconfig max stack depth (IDFGH-10245) May 26, 2023
@chipweinberger
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ESP-Marius , would be great if you could sync this one as well.

I've been testing/using this change without issue.

@ESP-Marius
Copy link
Collaborator

sha=bf7020c36fcf1d5dc98afb299605ed7be5ac3af2

@ESP-Marius ESP-Marius added the PR-Sync-Merge Pull request sync as merge commit label May 30, 2023
@ESP-Marius
Copy link
Collaborator

ESP-Marius commented May 30, 2023

LGTM @chipweinberger

Please add this to v5.1 =)

I'm afraid 5.1 has already branched of from master and we normally only backport bugfixes.

If we allowed features to be backported it would greatly increase the number of changes done to stable branches and increase the regression risk (even though I agree for this change the risk is minimal) 😢

@espressif-bot espressif-bot added Status: Reviewing Issue is being reviewed Status: Done Issue is done internally Resolution: NA Issue resolution is unavailable and removed Status: Opened Issue is new Status: Reviewing Issue is being reviewed labels May 31, 2023
@chipweinberger
Copy link
Contributor Author

merged 23cba5f

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
PR-Sync-Merge Pull request sync as merge commit Resolution: NA Issue resolution is unavailable Status: Done Issue is done internally
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants