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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190827174932.44177-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190827214613.9B896206E0@mail.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20190827214613.9B896206E0@mail.kernel.org>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Aug 2019 14:51:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45NudtV4Q-ooXStGnEUDYCBbTx2JvkYQn1_mLZNYqnPjA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:46 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> 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@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>
> > ---
>
> 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?