Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

[Randy Dunlap]

On 8/27/19 1:21 PM, shuah 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
>> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Â include/kunit/test.h |Â 7 +++++++
>> Â kunit/test.cÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> Â 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)
>> Â Â void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test);
>> Â +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> 
> Please make this #if defined(CONFIG_PRINTK)

explain why, please?

thanks.
-- 
~Randy