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

[shuah]

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
> > > 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.

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.

thanks,
-- Shuah