-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 579
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
Reduce nsh stack consumption #2954
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Xiang Xiao <[email protected]>
[Experimental Bot, please feedback here] No, this PR summary does not fully meet the NuttX requirements. While it addresses what is changed, it lacks crucial details about why and how. Here's a breakdown: Missing from Summary:
Missing from Impact:
Missing from Testing:
Example of an improved summary:
nsh> pwd // Demonstrating some path-related command and its output before the change
nsh> pwd // The same command after the change
|
to save the stack consumption Signed-off-by: Xiang Xiao <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thank you @xiaoxiang781216 :-)
@@ -595,8 +595,15 @@ int cmd_watch(FAR struct nsh_vtbl_s *vtbl, int argc, FAR char **argv) | |||
|
|||
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) | |||
{ | |||
FAR char *buffer = lib_get_tempbuffer(LINE_MAX); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
why not get at line 595 & put at line 615 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
because line 613 call sleep, which may sleep for a long time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
Summary
Impact
Testing
sim:nsh