| Message ID | 20230405-kselftest-nolibc-v2-1-2ac2495814b5@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | tools/nolibc: Support vprintf() so we can use kselftest.h with nolibc | expand |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:19:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > vprintf() is equivalent to vfprintf() to stdout so implement it as a simple > wrapper for the existing vfprintf(), allowing us to build kselftest.h. > > Suggested-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > --- > tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > index 96ac8afc5aee..6cbbb52836a0 100644 > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > @@ -273,6 +273,12 @@ int vfprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, va_list args) > return written; > } > > +static __attribute__((unused)) > +int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args) > +{ > + return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args); > +} > + > static __attribute__((unused, format(printf, 2, 3))) > int fprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, ...) > { Perfect, thank you Mark, I'm glad that it simplified the rest of your series. Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Paul, feel free to directly queue this one for 6.5. If you prefer I can as well queue it on my side and send it later, it's just that I have exactly zero extra value on top of this one ;-) Thanks, Willy
On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:26:09PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:19:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > vprintf() is equivalent to vfprintf() to stdout so implement it as a simple > > wrapper for the existing vfprintf(), allowing us to build kselftest.h. > > > > Suggested-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> > > --- > > tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > > index 96ac8afc5aee..6cbbb52836a0 100644 > > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h > > @@ -273,6 +273,12 @@ int vfprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, va_list args) > > return written; > > } > > > > +static __attribute__((unused)) > > +int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args) > > +{ > > + return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args); > > +} > > + > > static __attribute__((unused, format(printf, 2, 3))) > > int fprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, ...) > > { > > Perfect, thank you Mark, I'm glad that it simplified the rest of > your series. > > Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> > > Paul, feel free to directly queue this one for 6.5. If you prefer I > can as well queue it on my side and send it later, it's just that I > have exactly zero extra value on top of this one ;-) Alternatively, if it would be more convenient for Mark to send this up via kselftest: Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> It currently merges cleanly with the -rcu tree's dev branch, so this should not be a problem. Either way, please let me know, Mark! Thanx, Paul
On 4/6/23 12:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 08:26:09PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 05:19:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >>> vprintf() is equivalent to vfprintf() to stdout so implement it as a simple >>> wrapper for the existing vfprintf(), allowing us to build kselftest.h. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> >>> --- >>> tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h | 6 ++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h >>> index 96ac8afc5aee..6cbbb52836a0 100644 >>> --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h >>> +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h >>> @@ -273,6 +273,12 @@ int vfprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, va_list args) >>> return written; >>> } >>> >>> +static __attribute__((unused)) >>> +int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args) >>> +{ >>> + return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args); >>> +} >>> + >>> static __attribute__((unused, format(printf, 2, 3))) >>> int fprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, ...) >>> { >> >> Perfect, thank you Mark, I'm glad that it simplified the rest of >> your series. >> >> Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> >> >> Paul, feel free to directly queue this one for 6.5. If you prefer I >> can as well queue it on my side and send it later, it's just that I >> have exactly zero extra value on top of this one ;-) > > Alternatively, if it would be more convenient for Mark to send this > up via kselftest: > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > It currently merges cleanly with the -rcu tree's dev branch, so this > should not be a problem. > > Either way, please let me know, Mark! > > I can take these through kselftest or can go through arm64 Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> thanks, -- Shuah
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:30:04PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 4/6/23 12:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Alternatively, if it would be more convenient for Mark to send this > > up via kselftest: > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > It currently merges cleanly with the -rcu tree's dev branch, so this > > should not be a problem. > > Either way, please let me know, Mark! > I can take these through kselftest or can go through arm64 > Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even needed.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:30:04PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 4/6/23 12:43, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > Alternatively, if it would be more convenient for Mark to send this > > > up via kselftest: > > > > Acked-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> > > > > It currently merges cleanly with the -rcu tree's dev branch, so this > > > should not be a problem. > > > > Either way, please let me know, Mark! > > > I can take these through kselftest or can go through arm64 > > > Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> > > It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably > makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even > needed. Fine by me, as long as it doesn't conflict with any other arm64 selftest changes you hope to land for 6.4. Will
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:03:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably > > makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even > > needed. > Fine by me, as long as it doesn't conflict with any other arm64 selftest > changes you hope to land for 6.4. That shouldn't be an issue.
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:13:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:03:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably > > > makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even > > > needed. > > > Fine by me, as long as it doesn't conflict with any other arm64 selftest > > changes you hope to land for 6.4. > > That shouldn't be an issue. Shuah, looks to me like this one is yours in kselftest, then. ;-) Thanx, Paul
On 4/11/23 10:44, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:13:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:03:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >> >>>> It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably >>>> makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even >>>> needed. >> >>> Fine by me, as long as it doesn't conflict with any other arm64 selftest >>> changes you hope to land for 6.4. >> >> That shouldn't be an issue. > > Shuah, looks to me like this one is yours in kselftest, then. ;-) > > Thanx, Paul I will pick these up for Linux 6.4 thanks, -- Shuah
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:54:29PM -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 4/11/23 10:44, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:13:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 04:03:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 03:31:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > It seems like more of a kselftest change than anything else so probably > > > > > makes sense for it to go that way? The example user isn't really even > > > > > needed. > > > > > > > Fine by me, as long as it doesn't conflict with any other arm64 selftest > > > > changes you hope to land for 6.4. > > > > > > That shouldn't be an issue. > > > > Shuah, looks to me like this one is yours in kselftest, then. ;-) > > > > Thanx, Paul > > I will pick these up for Linux 6.4 Cheers, Shuah! Will
diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h index 96ac8afc5aee..6cbbb52836a0 100644 --- a/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h @@ -273,6 +273,12 @@ int vfprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, va_list args) return written; } +static __attribute__((unused)) +int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args) +{ + return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args); +} + static __attribute__((unused, format(printf, 2, 3))) int fprintf(FILE *stream, const char *fmt, ...) {
vprintf() is equivalent to vfprintf() to stdout so implement it as a simple wrapper for the existing vfprintf(), allowing us to build kselftest.h. Suggested-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> --- tools/include/nolibc/stdio.h | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)