On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:21 PM shuah shuah@kernel.org wrote:
On 8/27/19 11:49 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
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
include/kunit/test.h | 7 +++++++ kunit/test.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index 8b7eb03d4971..339af5f95c4a 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -339,9 +339,16 @@ static inline void *kunit_kzalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
[...]
Okay after reviewing this, I am not sure why you need to do all this.
Why can't you just change the root function that throws the warn:
static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) { return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); }
You aren'r really doing anything extra here, other than calling vprintk_emit()
Yeah, I did that a while ago. I think it was a combination of trying to avoid an extra layer of adding and then removing the log level, and that's what dev_printk and friends did.
But I think you are probably right. It's a lot of maintenance overhead to get rid of that. Probably best to just use what the printk people have.
Unless I am missing something, can't you solve this problem by including printk.h and let it handle the !CONFIG_PRINTK case?
Randy, I hope you don't mind, but I am going to ask you to re-ack my next revision since it basically addresses the problem in a totally different way.