On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 10:24 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
wrote:
>
> On (08/27/19 21:45), Brendan Higgins wrote:
> [..]
> > I actually use it in a very similar way as dev_printk() does. I am using
> > it to define an equivalent kunit_printk(), which takes a log level, and
> > adds its own test informati
On (08/27/19 21:45), Brendan Higgins wrote:
[..]
> I actually use it in a very similar way as dev_printk() does. I am using
> it to define an equivalent kunit_printk(), which takes a log level, and
> adds its own test information to the log.
>
> What I have now is:
>
> static int kunit_vprintk_em
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 12:02:31PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (08/27/19 16:48), Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > Previously vprintk_emit was only defined when CONFIG_PRINTK=y, this
> > caused a build failure in kunit/test.c when CONFIG_PRINTK was not set.
> > Add a no-op dummy so that callers
On (08/27/19 16:48), Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Previously vprintk_emit was only defined when CONFIG_PRINTK=y, this
> caused a build failure in kunit/test.c when CONFIG_PRINTK was not set.
> Add a no-op dummy so that callers don't have to ifdef around this.
>
> Note: It has been suggested that this
On 8/27/19 4:48 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> Previously vprintk_emit was only defined when CONFIG_PRINTK=y, this
> caused a build failure in kunit/test.c when CONFIG_PRINTK was not set.
> Add a no-op dummy so that callers don't have to ifdef around this.
>
> Note: It has been suggested that this g
Previously vprintk_emit was only defined when CONFIG_PRINTK=y, this
caused a build failure in kunit/test.c when CONFIG_PRINTK was not set.
Add a no-op dummy so that callers don't have to ifdef around this.
Note: It has been suggested that this go in through the kselftest tree
along with the KUnit
6 matches
Mail list logo
