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;
Message-ID: <b9b83ce738fc0abde04ad82d0fa6786a1370fbab.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
From:   Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To:     shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        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, pmladek@suse.com, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 21:56:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <f2d5b474411b2940d62198490f06e77890fbdb32.camel@perches.com>
References: <20190828093143.163302-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
         <20190828094929.GA14038@jagdpanzerIV>
         <8b2d63bf-56cd-e8f5-e8ee-2891c2c1be8f@kernel.org>
         <f2d5b474411b2940d62198490f06e77890fbdb32.camel@perches.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.1-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 21:44 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-29 at 11:01 -0600, shuah wrote:
[]
> > 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()

btw: the checkpatch message is meant to be interpreted as

Prefer [subsystem eg: netdev]_<level>([subsystem]dev, ...) then dev_<level>(dev, ...) then pr_<level>(...), to printk(KERN_<LEVEL> ...)

btw2:

dev_level is actually not a function, but a convenience macro argument
which indirects to an actual specific logging function.

So no, there is not supposed to be a pr_level.