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... 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