On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:02:59AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:58 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
...
> > > > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> > > >
> > > > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> > >
> > > Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
> >
> > Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
> > I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
> >
> > (I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
> > explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
> > it safe to do?")
>
> The true answer to "why is this needed" is Petr requested it in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6s2eqh0jkYHntUL@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ (again,
> lore is having issues):
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > But when thinking more about it. I think that even pr_debug() is not
> > the right solution.
> >
> > IMHO, we really want to print these details only when the test fails.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
>
> The commit message already answers "why is it safe to do":
Not really. It answers that "why is it safe to do when test case fails?".
> > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> Perhaps what you're asking for is an assertion to be added if n_args
> == 0? I think that would make sense. Does it belong in this series?
I don't know if it's possible case. I don't know if we need an assertion.
Please, research.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
