Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
To:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Cc:     kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, frowand.list@gmail.com,
        sboyd@kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <20190827174932.44177-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <ae9b9102-187c-eefe-d377-6efa63de2d28@kernel.org>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
Message-ID: <5b626f60-8472-a97e-378e-755160e5d948@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:53:21 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ae9b9102-187c-eefe-d377-6efa63de2d28@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 8/27/19 1:21 PM, shuah wrote:
> On 8/27/19 11:49 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
>> 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@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>
>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
>> ---
>>   include/kunit/test.h |  7 +++++++
>>   kunit/test.c         | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>   2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h
>> index 8b7eb03d4971..339af5f95c4a 100644
>> --- a/include/kunit/test.h
>> +++ b/include/kunit/test.h
>> @@ -339,9 +339,16 @@ static inline void *kunit_kzalloc(struct kunit *test, size_t size, gfp_t gfp)
>>     void kunit_cleanup(struct kunit *test);
>>   +#ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK
> 
> Please make this #if defined(CONFIG_PRINTK)

explain why, please?

thanks.
-- 
~Randy