Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk | From | shuah <> | Date | Thu, 29 Aug 2019 11:01:08 -0600 |
| |
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@infradead.org> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97-715a-fabe016259df@kernel.org/T/#t >> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> >> Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com> > > [..] > >> -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
| |