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: <20190828093143.163302-1-brendanhiggins@google.com>
 <20190828094929.GA14038@jagdpanzerIV> <8b2d63bf-56cd-e8f5-e8ee-2891c2c1be8f@kernel.org>
 <f2d5b474411b2940d62198490f06e77890fbdb32.camel@perches.com>
 <20190830183821.GA30306@google.com> <bc688b00b2995e4b11229c3d4d90f532e00792c7.camel@perches.com>
 <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF977A8392@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com> <ca01d8c4823c63db52fc0f18d62334aeb5634a50.camel@perches.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca01d8c4823c63db52fc0f18d62334aeb5634a50.camel@perches.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:02:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g45X8bOiTWn5TMe3iEFwASafr6dWo6c4bG32uRKbQ+r5oA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
To:     Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc:     "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@sony.com>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        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>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        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 Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 3:46 PM Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 21:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@sony.com 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.

Sorry, to be clear, we are talking about the object size penalty due
to adding a single parameter to a function. Is that right?