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

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-27 10:49:32)
> 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>
> ---

Does kunit itself have any meaning if printk doesn't work? Why not just
depend on CONFIG_PRINTK for now?