On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:21 PM shuah <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 8/27/19 11:49 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > Previously KUnit assumed that printk would always be present, which is > > not a valid assumption to make. Fix that by ifdefing out functions which > > directly depend on printk core functions similar to what dev_printk > > does. > > > > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Link: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/T/#t > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> > > --- > > include/kunit/test.h | 7 +++++++ > > kunit/test.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > index 8b7eb03d4971..339af5f95c4a 100644 > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > @@ -339,9 +339,16 @@ static inline void *kunit_kzalloc(struct kunit *test, > > size_t size, gfp_t gfp) [...] > Okay after reviewing this, I am not sure why you need to do all > this. > > Why can't you just change the root function that throws the warn: > > static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) > { > return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > } > > You aren'r really doing anything extra here, other than calling > vprintk_emit()
Yeah, I did that a while ago. I think it was a combination of trying to avoid an extra layer of adding and then removing the log level, and that's what dev_printk and friends did. But I think you are probably right. It's a lot of maintenance overhead to get rid of that. Probably best to just use what the printk people have. > Unless I am missing something, can't you solve this problem by including > printk.h and let it handle the !CONFIG_PRINTK case? Randy, I hope you don't mind, but I am going to ask you to re-ack my next revision since it basically addresses the problem in a totally different way.
