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

Set the malloc lock on C6, C2 and H2. #100

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 9, 2024

Conversation

floitsch
Copy link
Member

@floitsch floitsch commented Dec 9, 2024

No description provided.

@floitsch floitsch requested a review from kasperl December 9, 2024 16:17
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Dec 9, 2024

Warnings
⚠️

Some issues found for the commit messages in this PR:

  • the commit message "Set the malloc lock on C6, C2 and H2.":
    • summary should not end with a period (full stop)
    • summary looks empty
    • type/action looks empty

Please fix these commit messages - here are some basic tips:

  • follow Conventional Commits style
  • correct format of commit message should be: <type/action>(<scope/component>): <summary>, for example fix(esp32): Fixed startup timeout issue
  • allowed types are: change,ci,docs,feat,fix,refactor,remove,revert,test
  • sufficiently descriptive message summary should be between 20 to 72 characters and start with upper case letter
  • avoid Jira references in commit messages (unavailable/irrelevant for our customers)

TIP: Install pre-commit hooks and run this check when committing (uses the Conventional Precommit Linter).

⚠️ The Pull Request description is empty. Please provide a detailed description.
⚠️
	The **target branch** for this Pull Request **must be the default branch** of the project (`master`).

	If you would like to add this feature to a different branch, please state this in the PR description and we will consider it.

👋 Hello floitsch, we appreciate your contribution to this project!


📘 Please review the project's Contributions Guide for key guidelines on code, documentation, testing, and more.

🖊️ Please also make sure you have read and signed the Contributor License Agreement for this project.

Click to see more instructions ...


This automated output is generated by the PR linter DangerJS, which checks if your Pull Request meets the project's requirements and helps you fix potential issues.

DangerJS is triggered with each push event to a Pull Request and modify the contents of this comment.

Please consider the following:
- Danger mainly focuses on the PR structure and formatting and can't understand the meaning behind your code or changes.
- Danger is not a substitute for human code reviews; it's still important to request a code review from your colleagues.
- Resolve all warnings (⚠️ ) before requesting a review from human reviewers - they will appreciate it.
- To manually retry these Danger checks, please navigate to the Actions tab and re-run last Danger workflow.

Review and merge process you can expect ...


We do welcome contributions in the form of bug reports, feature requests and pull requests via this public GitHub repository.

This GitHub project is public mirror of our internal git repository

1. An internal issue has been created for the PR, we assign it to the relevant engineer.
2. They review the PR and either approve it or ask you for changes or clarifications.
3. Once the GitHub PR is approved, we synchronize it into our internal git repository.
4. In the internal git repository we do the final review, collect approvals from core owners and make sure all the automated tests are passing.
- At this point we may do some adjustments to the proposed change, or extend it by adding tests or documentation.
5. If the change is approved and passes the tests it is merged into the default branch.
5. On next sync from the internal git repository merged change will appear in this public GitHub repository.

Generated by 🚫 dangerJS against 593470e

Copy link

@kasperl kasperl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me.

Did you test this on plain esp32?

@floitsch
Copy link
Member Author

floitsch commented Dec 9, 2024

Looks good to me.

Did you test this on plain esp32?

I did run this build an esp32. Before committing I will run it again with debug-printing to ensure that the set_lock is actually called and I wasn't just lucky.

@floitsch floitsch merged commit 262239b into patch-head-5.3.1 Dec 9, 2024
2 of 3 checks passed
@floitsch floitsch deleted the floitsch/set-lock branch December 9, 2024 17:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants