Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
From: Brendan Higgins
Date: Fri Aug 30 2019 - 19:04:52 EST
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 21:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Joe Perches
> > IMHO %pV should be avoided if possible. Just because people are
> > doing it doesn't mean it should be used when it is not necessary.
> Well, as the guy that created %pV, I of course
> have a different opinion.
> > > then wouldn't it be easier to pass in the
> > > > kernel level as a separate parameter and then strip off all printk
> > > > headers like this:
> > >
> > > Depends on whether or not you care for overall
> > > object size. Consolidated formats with the
> > > embedded KERN_<LEVEL> like suggested are smaller
> > > overall object size.
> > This is an argument I can agree with. I'm generally in favor of
> > things that lessen kernel size creep. :-)
> As am I.
Sorry, to be clear, we are talking about the object size penalty due
to adding a single parameter to a function. Is that right?