On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 4:35 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Link[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/c7229254-0d90-d90e-f3df-5b6d6fc0b51f@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Link[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20190827174932.44177-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Link[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20190827234835.234473-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Link[4]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20190828093143.163302-1-brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> # build-tested > > Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > 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!
