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@linux.intel.com 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@linux.intel.com 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@pathway.suse.cz/ (again, lore is having issues):
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek pmladek@suse.com 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.