[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ECADFF3FD767C149AD96A924E7EA6EAF977A842A@USCULXMSG01.am.sony.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 23:29:17 +0000
From: <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
To: <joe@...ches.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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Perches
>
> 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.
LOL. Well I stepped in that one.
I don't have any data to support my position on this particular printk feature,
but having worked for a while on stack size reduction for a few Sony products,
I'm always a bit leery of recursive routines in the kernel. I vaguely recall
some recursive printk routines giving me problems on a product that used
a sub-4K stack configuration I did many years ago. I don't recall if it was
specifically %pV or not. Anyway YMMV.
-- Tim
Powered by blists - more mailing lists