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

[Brendan Higgins]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?

I was thinking about that, but I figured it is probably easier in the
long run to make sure it always works without printk.

It also just seemed like the right thing to do, but I suppose that's
not a very good reason.

I am fine with any of the three options: depend on CONFIG_PRINTK - as
suggested by Stephen, just use printk - as suggested by Shuah, or
continue to use vprintk_emit as I have been doing. However, my
preference is the vprintk_emit option.

Anyone have any strong opinions on the matter?