On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 11:38 -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 09:44:58PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 11:01 -0600, shuah wrote: > > > On 8/28/19 3:49 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > > > On (08/28/19 02:31), Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > Previously KUnit assumed that printk would always be present, which is > > > > > not a valid assumption to make. Fix that by removing call to > > > > > vprintk_emit, and calling printk directly. > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdun...@infradead.org> > > > > > Link: > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe01625...@kernel.org/T/#t > > > > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> > > > > > Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.w...@gmail.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhigg...@google.com> > > > > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > -static void kunit_vprintk(const struct kunit *test, > > > > > - const char *level, > > > > > - struct va_format *vaf) > > > > > -{ > > > > > - kunit_printk_emit(level[1] - '0', "\t# %s: %pV", test->name, > > > > > vaf); > > > > > -} > > > > > > > > This patch looks good to me. I like the removal of recursive > > > > vsprintf() (%pV). > > > > > > > > -ss > > > > > > > > > > Hi Sergey, > > > > > > What are the guidelines for using printk(). I recall some discussion > > > about not using printk(). I am seeing the following from checkpatch > > > script: > > > > > > > > > WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_level([subsystem]dev, ... then > > > dev_level(dev, ... then pr_level(... to printk(KERN_LEVEL ... > > > #105: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:343: > > > + printk(KERN_LEVEL "\t# %s: " fmt, (test)->name, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > > > > > > Is there supposed to be pr_level() - I can find dev_level() > > > > > > cc'ing Joe Perches for his feedback on this message recommending > > > pr_level() which isn't in 5.3. > > > > I don't care for pr_level or KERN_LEVEL in a printk. > > I don't think I follow, how does your version fix this? > > > I think this is somewhat overly complicated. > > > > I think I'd write it like: > > --- > > include/kunit/test.h | 11 ++++----- > > kunit/test.c | 69 > > ++++++++++++++++------------------------------------ > > 2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h > > index 8b7eb03d4971..aa4abf0a22a5 100644 > > --- a/include/kunit/test.h > > +++ b/include/kunit/test.h > > @@ -339,9 +339,8 @@ static inline void *kunit_kzalloc(struct kunit *test, > > size_t size, gfp_t gfp) > > > > void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test); > > > > -void __printf(3, 4) kunit_printk(const char *level, > > - const struct kunit *test, > > - const char *fmt, ...); > > +__printf(2, 3) > > +void kunit_printk(const struct kunit *test, const char *fmt, ...); > > > > /** > > * kunit_info() - Prints an INFO level message associated with @test. > > @@ -353,7 +352,7 @@ void __printf(3, 4) kunit_printk(const char *level, > > * Takes a variable number of format parameters just like printk(). > > */ > > #define kunit_info(test, fmt, ...) \ > > - kunit_printk(KERN_INFO, test, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > + kunit_printk(test, KERN_INFO fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > /** > > * kunit_warn() - Prints a WARN level message associated with @test. > > @@ -364,7 +363,7 @@ void __printf(3, 4) kunit_printk(const char *level, > > * Prints a warning level message. > > */ > > #define kunit_warn(test, fmt, ...) \ > > - kunit_printk(KERN_WARNING, test, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > + kunit_printk(test, KERN_WARNING fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > /** > > * kunit_err() - Prints an ERROR level message associated with @test. > > @@ -375,7 +374,7 @@ void __printf(3, 4) kunit_printk(const char *level, > > * Prints an error level message. > > */ > > #define kunit_err(test, fmt, ...) \ > > - kunit_printk(KERN_ERR, test, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > + kunit_printk(test, KERN_ERR fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > > > /** > > * KUNIT_SUCCEED() - A no-op expectation. Only exists for code clarity. > > diff --git a/kunit/test.c b/kunit/test.c > > index b2ca9b94c353..ddb9bffb5a5d 100644 > > --- a/kunit/test.c > > +++ b/kunit/test.c > > @@ -16,40 +16,6 @@ static void kunit_set_failure(struct kunit *test) > > WRITE_ONCE(test->success, false); > > } > > > > -static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) > > -{ > > - return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > > -} > > - > > -static int kunit_printk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, ...) > > -{ > > - va_list args; > > - int ret; > > - > > - va_start(args, fmt); > > - ret = kunit_vprintk_emit(level, fmt, args); > > - va_end(args); > > - > > - return ret; > > -} > > - > > -static void kunit_vprintk(const struct kunit *test, > > - const char *level, > > - struct va_format *vaf) > > -{ > > - kunit_printk_emit(level[1] - '0', "\t# %s: %pV", test->name, vaf); > > -} > > - > > -static void kunit_print_tap_version(void) > > -{ > > - static bool kunit_has_printed_tap_version; > > - > > - if (!kunit_has_printed_tap_version) { > > - kunit_printk_emit(LOGLEVEL_INFO, "TAP version 14\n"); > > - kunit_has_printed_tap_version = true; > > - } > > -} > > - > > static size_t kunit_test_cases_len(struct kunit_case *test_cases) > > { > > struct kunit_case *test_case; > > @@ -63,11 +29,9 @@ static size_t kunit_test_cases_len(struct kunit_case > > *test_cases) > > > > static void kunit_print_subtest_start(struct kunit_suite *suite) > > { > > - kunit_print_tap_version(); > > - kunit_printk_emit(LOGLEVEL_INFO, "\t# Subtest: %s\n", suite->name); > > - kunit_printk_emit(LOGLEVEL_INFO, > > - "\t1..%zd\n", > > - kunit_test_cases_len(suite->test_cases)); > > + pr_info_once("TAP version 14\n"); > > + pr_info("\t# Subtest: %s\n", suite->name); > > + pr_info("\t1..%zd\n", kunit_test_cases_len(suite->test_cases)); > > } > > > > static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(bool should_indent, > > @@ -87,9 +51,8 @@ static void kunit_print_ok_not_ok(bool should_indent, > > else > > ok_not_ok = "not ok"; > > > > - kunit_printk_emit(LOGLEVEL_INFO, > > - "%s%s %zd - %s\n", > > - indent, ok_not_ok, test_number, description); > > + pr_info("%s%s %zd - %s\n", > > + indent, ok_not_ok, test_number, description); > > } > > > > static bool kunit_suite_has_succeeded(struct kunit_suite *suite) > > @@ -133,11 +96,11 @@ static void kunit_print_string_stream(struct kunit > > *test, > > kunit_err(test, > > "Could not allocate buffer, dumping stream:\n"); > > list_for_each_entry(fragment, &stream->fragments, node) { > > - kunit_err(test, fragment->fragment); > > + kunit_err(test, "%s", fragment->fragment); > > } > > kunit_err(test, "\n"); > > } else { > > - kunit_err(test, buf); > > + kunit_err(test, "%s", buf); > > kunit_kfree(test, buf); > > } > > } > > @@ -505,19 +468,29 @@ void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test) > > } > > } > > > > -void kunit_printk(const char *level, > > - const struct kunit *test, > > - const char *fmt, ...) > > +void kunit_printk(const struct kunit *test, const char *fmt, ...) > > { > > + char lvl[PRINTK_MAX_SINGLE_HEADER_LEN + 1] = "\0"; > > struct va_format vaf; > > va_list args; > > + int kern_level; > > > > va_start(args, fmt); > > > > + while ((kern_level = printk_get_level(fmt)) != 0) { > > + size_t size = printk_skip_level(fmt) - fmt; > > + > > + if (kern_level >= '0' && kern_level <= '7') { > > + memcpy(lvl, fmt, size); > > + lvl[size] = '\0'; > > + } > > + fmt += size; > > + } > > + > > vaf.fmt = fmt; > > vaf.va = &args; > > > > - kunit_vprintk(test, level, &vaf); > > + printk("%s\t# %s %pV\n", lvl, test->name, &vaf); > > > > va_end(args); > > } > > How is this simpler? > > If we are okay with dynamically adding the KERN_<LEVEL> and %pV (and I > don't think that Sergey is),
Sergey may well be in the minority overall as %pV is now very frequently used throughout the kernel. $ git grep "%pV" | wc -l 241 then wouldn't it be easier to pass in the > kernel level as a separate parameter and then strip off all printk > headers like this: Depends on whether or not you care for overall object size. Consolidated formats with the embedded KERN_<LEVEL> like suggested are smaller overall object size. This style is also already used in the kernel. > I don't know. I am clearly not an expert on this topic, but I don't see > the merit of the while loop you added above or dropping the level param. The while use is only to avoid misuses with consecutive KERN_<LEVEL> formats, which had happened in the past.
