On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:35 PM Joe Perches <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 16:21 -0700, 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. > > > > This fixes a build error[1] reported by Randy. > > > > For context this change comes after much discussion. My first stab[2] at > > this was just to make the KUnit logging code compile out; however, it > > was agreed that if we were going to use vprintk_emit, then vprintk_emit > > should provide a no-op stub, which lead to my second attempt[3]. In > > response to me trying to stub out vprintk_emit, Sergey Senozhatsky > > suggested a way for me to remove our usage of vprintk_emit, which led to > > my third attempt at solving this[4]. > > > > In my previous version of this patch[4], I completely removed > > vprintk_emit, as suggested by Sergey; however, there was a bit of debate > > over whether Sergey's solution was the best. The debate arose due to > > Sergey's version resulting in a checkpatch warning, which resulted in a > > debate over correct printk usage. Joe Perches offered an alternative fix > > which was somewhat less far reaching than what Sergey had suggested and > > importantly relied on continuing to use %pV. Much of the debated > > centered around whether %pV should be widely used, and whether Sergey's > > version would result in object size bloat. Ultimately, we decided to go > > with Sergey's version. > > > > Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> > > Link[1]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/ > > Link[2]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/ > > Link[3]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/ > > Link[4]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/ > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> > > Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <[email protected]> > > Cc: Joe Perches <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> > > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> # build-tested > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > Sorry for the long commit message, but given the long discussion (and > > some of the confusion that occurred in the discussion), it seemed > > appropriate to summarize the discussion around this patch up to this > > point (especially since one of the proposed patches was under a separate > > patch subject). > > > > No changes have been made to this patch since v2, other than the commit > > log. > [] > > diff --git 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, ...); > > +#define kunit_print_level(KERN_LEVEL, test, fmt, ...) \ > > + printk(KERN_LEVEL "\t# %s: " fmt, (test)->name, ##__VA_ARGS__) > > Non trivial notes: > > Please do not use KERN_LEVEL as a macro argument. > It would just be a source of possible confusion. > > Please use level or lvl like nearly every other macro > that does this uses.
Will do. > And there is nothing wrong with using kunit_printk and it's > not necessary to use an odd name like kunit_printk_level. Sounds reasonable. [...] Thanks!
