Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

[shuah]

On 8/28/19 3:49 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/28/19 02:31), Brendan Higgins wrote:
> [..]
> > Previously KUnit assumed that printk would always be present, which is
> > not a valid assumption to make. Fix that by removing call to
> > vprintk_emit, and calling printk directly.
> >
> > 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>
> > Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [..]
>
> > -static void kunit_vprintk(const struct kunit *test,
> > -			  const char *level,
> > -			  struct va_format *vaf)
> > -{
> > -	kunit_printk_emit(level[1] - '0', "\t# %s: %pV", test->name, vaf);
> > -}
>
> This patch looks good to me. I like the removal of recursive
> vsprintf() (%pV).
>
> 	-ss

Hi Sergey,

What are the guidelines for using printk(). I recall some discussion
about not using printk(). I am seeing the following from checkpatch
script:


WARNING: Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_level([subsystem]dev, ... then 
dev_level(dev, ... then pr_level(...  to printk(KERN_LEVEL ...
#105: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:343:
+	printk(KERN_LEVEL "\t# %s: " fmt, (test)->name, ##__VA_ARGS__)


Is there supposed to be pr_level() - I can find dev_level()

cc'ing Joe Perches for his feedback on this message recommending
pr_level() which isn't in 5.3.

thanks,
-- Shuah

thanks,
-- Shuah