On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:09 PM Brendan Higgins
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:03 PM Brendan Higgins
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 1:21 PM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
@@ -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
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
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
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
Actually, scratch that. Checkpatch doesn't like me calling printk
without using a KERN_<LEVEL>.
Now that I am thinking back to when I wrote this. I think it also
might not like using a dynamic KERN_<LEVEL> either (printk("%s my
I am going to have to do some more investigation.
Alright, I am pretty sure it is safe to do printk("%smessage", KERN_<LEVEL>);
Looking at the printk implementation, it appears to do the format
before it checks the log level:
So I am pretty sure we can do it either with the vprintk_emit or with printk.
So it appears that we have to weigh the following trade-offs:
- That's what dev_printk uses.