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

[Joe Perches]

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.