On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Boyd sboyd@kernel.org wrote:
Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-27 10:49:32)
Previously KUnit assumed that printk would always be present, which is not a valid assumption to make. Fix that by ifdefing out functions which directly depend on printk core functions similar to what dev_printk does.
Reported-by: Randy Dunlap rdunlap@infradead.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df... Cc: Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins brendanhiggins@google.com
Does kunit itself have any meaning if printk doesn't work? Why not just depend on CONFIG_PRINTK for now?
I was thinking about that, but I figured it is probably easier in the long run to make sure it always works without printk.
It also just seemed like the right thing to do, but I suppose that's not a very good reason.
I am fine with any of the three options: depend on CONFIG_PRINTK - as suggested by Stephen, just use printk - as suggested by Shuah, or continue to use vprintk_emit as I have been doing. However, my preference is the vprintk_emit option.
Anyone have any strong opinions on the matter?