From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97117C3A5A3 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B8372186A for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 22:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="U5ZaoDoT" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726065AbfH0Wvz (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 18:51:55 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-f193.google.com ([209.85.210.193]:42217 "EHLO mail-pf1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726030AbfH0Wvy (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 18:51:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pf1-f193.google.com with SMTP id i30so329177pfk.9 for ; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wFS84o865rjfeoexZQAGgSJ3KNvxXPbscOst+ksMfHk=; b=U5ZaoDoTMnBmZDZcgGS8Su54bbbtcSFASghPcUfi99ZKeSsquWSZ0OmqEN+ywvbci9 kPWL/GrVNAH+uD8Vp387aOL8ddYMFSoFKGByd2YY7T9wKD3nXpWkrxWbNRWuhqMbqG3Q XtBe5ZS7HPuopgQ/ibLfCap9AEQyJt6xZFSAPkSvLFEgJ3HkCo4YseWnc1PmsV4jN16p WLa4ctoa8ZtCan6eKllVrcwbJcIBFqyAh767zdKLiIE5Q9KfQxqLaKKPYcPrqac7t3Yf Vs+/JXMdcD4tS3rbB9tGbqwqdT3X3GrfvHOwOGFrqM7UpWYp03CQbb7y8tpbJqh/l1L4 pkmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wFS84o865rjfeoexZQAGgSJ3KNvxXPbscOst+ksMfHk=; b=f15nULOLj7vpVRBUXR+S/mo41NQo6mN7vRzYASbvdnnBG8MP1FGhoMb9mPQAGKF89Q Mf+usKZnGi1b3f3AXJyjdQJhRhFC85CAIWVeqhIEKEahyMFiDCv81IU+wcF5T4fsrBOl cDfUCupsSooTEmebKSdEVMWG3l2Nf78rLRRpeBIsHG1BQpcK0jbU3C69JccWeeKT9W1X LVZ2rUBQyhgQQKW3VL/3KrMBnnaBaDqQAj205N3BhbXmbPgXW/WAso5UUtCivfxpoYmM A71eA4uz/yBEMd5mQlhXVbS5Le+svPRmtisgnRsQ8F1ADPsmlxlZH4Lyj15alofGVg4j 7Dyw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVDxavdxGPheowe3kFIEdz12t639/PGRp44jXz7WoVJ4c0/wkpd J9djN+JT0TQ1TfHHSqvXCdwZhDH7ZrcEOOBV60VEMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyrExoKN9najOR7V5s7stTvKEsXiw2IOvSZbIU7s73MYVywoFW/iq5kG9gtzPZ5Fewg9UH2ruHTBZ3fs4FucS0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7f01:: with SMTP id k1mr1087908pjl.84.1566946313462; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:51:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190827174932.44177-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <10b44374-829d-0daa-8fb0-4450582cb40c@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: From: Brendan Higgins Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:51:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] kunit: fix failure to build without printk To: "Bird, Timothy" Cc: shuah , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , Frank Rowand , Stephen Boyd , Randy Dunlap , sfr@canb.auug.org.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:38 PM wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Brendan Higgins > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 3:00 PM shuah wrote: > > > > > > On 8/27/19 3:36 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:09 PM Brendan Higgins > > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:03 PM Brendan Higgins > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 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 > > > >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/0352fae9-564f-4a97- > > 715a-fabe016259df@kernel.org/T/#t > > > >>>>> Cc: Stephen Rothwell > > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins > > > >>>>> --- > > > >>>>> 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) > > > >>> [...] > > > >>>> Okay after reviewing this, I am not sure why you need to do all > > > >>>> this. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Why can't you just change the root function that throws the warn: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> static int kunit_vprintk_emit(int level, const char *fmt, va_list args) > > > >>>> { > > > >>>> return vprintk_emit(0, level, NULL, 0, fmt, args); > > > >>>> } > > > >>>> > > > >>>> You aren'r really doing anything extra here, other than calling > > > >>>> vprintk_emit() > > > >>> > > > >>> Yeah, I did that a while ago. I think it was a combination of trying > > > >>> to avoid an extra layer of adding and then removing the log level, and > > > >>> that's what dev_printk and friends did. > > > >>> > > > >>> But I think you are probably right. It's a lot of maintenance overhead > > > >>> to get rid of that. Probably best to just use what the printk people > > > >>> have. > > > >>> > > > >>>> Unless I am missing something, can't you solve this problem by > > including > > > >>>> printk.h and let it handle the !CONFIG_PRINTK case? > > > >>> > > > >>> Randy, I hope you don't mind, but I am going to ask you to re-ack my > > > >>> next revision since it basically addresses the problem in a totally > > > >>> different way. > > > >> > > > >> Actually, scratch that. Checkpatch doesn't like me calling printk > > > >> without using a KERN_. > > > >> > > > >> Now that I am thinking back to when I wrote this. I think it also > > > >> might not like using a dynamic KERN_ either (printk("%s my > > > >> message", KERN_INFO)). > > > >> > > > >> I am going to have to do some more investigation. > > > > > > > > Alright, I am pretty sure it is safe to do printk("%smessage", > > KERN_); > > > > > > > > Looking at the printk implementation, it appears to do the format > > > > before it checks the log level: > > > > > > > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.2.10/source/kernel/printk/printk.c#L1907 > > > > > > > > So I am pretty sure we can do it either with the vprintk_emit or with > > printk. > > > > > > Let me see if we are on the same page first. I am asking if you can > > > just include printk.h for vprintk_emit() define for both CONFIG_PRINTK > > > and !CONFIG_PRINTK cases. > > > > Ah sorry, I misunderstood you. > > > > No, that doesn't work. I tried including linux/printk.h, and I get the > > same error. > > > > The reason for this is that vprintk_emit() is only defined when > > CONFIG_PRINTK=y: > > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/vprintk_emit > > Ugh. That's just a bug in include/linux/printk.h > > There should be a stub definition for vprintk_emit() in the #else part > of #ifdef CONFIG_PRINTK. > > You shouldn't be dealing with whether printk is present or not > in the kunit code. All the printk-related routines are supposed > to evaporate themselves, based on the conditional in > include/linux/printk.h > > That should be fixed there instead of in your code. Alright. That makes sense. I will submit a patch to fix it. Sorry for not suggesting that, I just assumed that it was my mistake in how I was using printk. > Let me know if you'd like me to submit a patch for that. I only hesitate > because your patch depends on it, and IMHO it makes more sense to > include it in your batch than separately. Otherwise there's a patch race > condition. Thanks for clearing up the confusion!