On 8/27/19 1:21 PM, shuah 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 <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t >> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> 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) >> void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test); >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK > > Please make this #if defined(CONFIG_PRINTK) explain why, please? thanks. -- ~Randy
