Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>

[..]

-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.

thanks,
-- Shuah

thanks,
-- Shuah



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux