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

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

 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Perches 
> 
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 21:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Joe Perches
> []
> > IMHO %pV should be avoided if possible.  Just because people are
> > doing it doesn't mean it should be used when it is not necessary.
> 
> Well, as the guy that created %pV, I of course
> have a different opinion.

LOL.  Well I stepped in that one.

I don't have any data to support my position on this particular printk feature,
but having worked for a while on stack size reduction for a few Sony products,
I'm always a bit leery of recursive routines in the kernel.  I vaguely recall
some recursive printk routines giving me problems on a product that used
a sub-4K stack configuration I did many years ago.  I don't recall if it was
specifically %pV or not.  Anyway YMMV.
 -- Tim





[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