Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk

[shuah <shuah@kernel.org>]

On 8/27/19 2:53 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 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.
> 

This can be used to do compound logic. I have been using this style for
that reason starting a couple of years now. I seem to work in code paths
where I have to look for multiple config vars.

In this case, it probably doesn't matter as much either way.

thanks,
-- Shuah