Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk | From | shuah <> | Date | Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:16:15 -0600 |
| |
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
| |