On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-27 10:49:32) > > 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> > > --- > > Does kunit itself have any meaning if printk doesn't work? Why not just > depend on CONFIG_PRINTK for now? I was thinking about that, but I figured it is probably easier in the long run to make sure it always works without printk. It also just seemed like the right thing to do, but I suppose that's not a very good reason. I am fine with any of the three options: depend on CONFIG_PRINTK - as suggested by Stephen, just use printk - as suggested by Shuah, or continue to use vprintk_emit as I have been doing. However, my preference is the vprintk_emit option. Anyone have any strong opinions on the matter?
