Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] scanf: remove redundant debug logs

Tamir Duberstein
2025-02-11T16:03:39Z

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:58 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
>
> ...
>
> > > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> > >
> > > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
> >
> > Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
>
> Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
> I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
>
> (I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
> explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
> it safe to do?")

The true answer to "why is this needed" is Petr requested it in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Z6s2eqh0jkYHntUL@pathway.suse.cz/ (again,
lore is having issues):

On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> But when thinking more about it. I think that even pr_debug() is not
> the right solution.
>
> IMHO, we really want to print these details only when the test fails.
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr

The commit message already answers "why is it safe to do":

> The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> redundant pr_debug() logs.

Perhaps what you're asking for is an assertion to be added if n_args
== 0? I think that would make sense. Does it belong in this series?

Tamir