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

From: shuah
Date: Tue Aug 27 2019 - 17:16:19 EST

On 8/27/19 2:53 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
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

Reported-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
 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)
  void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test);

Please make this #if defined(CONFIG_PRINTK)

explain why, please?


This can be used to do compound logic. I have been using this style for
that reason starting a couple of years now. I seem to work in code paths
where I have to look for multiple config vars.

In this case, it probably doesn't matter as much either way.

-- Shuah