[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ca01d8c4823c63db52fc0f18d62334aeb5634a50.camel@perches.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 15:46:13 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Tim.Bird@...y.com, brendanhiggins@...gle.com
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, frowand.list@...il.com,
sboyd@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rdunlap@...radead.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix failure to build without printk
On Fri, 2019-08-30 at 21:58 +0000, Tim.Bird@...y.com wrote:
> > From: Joe Perches
[]
> IMHO %pV should be avoided if possible. Just because people are
> doing it doesn't mean it should be used when it is not necessary.
Well, as the guy that created %pV, I of course
have a different opinion.
> > then wouldn't it be easier to pass in the
> > > kernel level as a separate parameter and then strip off all printk
> > > headers like this:
> >
> > Depends on whether or not you care for overall
> > object size. Consolidated formats with the
> > embedded KERN_<LEVEL> like suggested are smaller
> > overall object size.
>
> This is an argument I can agree with. I'm generally in favor of
> things that lessen kernel size creep. :-)
As am I.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists