On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 11:43:37AM +0530, Sarthak Sharma wrote: > Hi Mike! > > On 5/24/26 10:36 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > On Thu, 21 May 2026 16:47:59 +0530, Sarthak Sharma <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Sarthak, > > > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> b/tools/lib/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> similarity index 98% > >> rename from tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> rename to tools/lib/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> index 5e947abb7425..b08b27776fc5 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> +++ b/tools/lib/mm/hugepage_settings.c > >> @@ -383,8 +387,6 @@ int detect_hugetlb_page_sizes(unsigned long sizes[], > >> int max) > >> if (sscanf(entry->d_name, "hugepages-%zukB", &kb) != 1) > >> continue; > >> sizes[count++] = kb * 1024; > >> - ksft_print_msg("[INFO] detected hugetlb page size: %zu KiB\n", > >> - kb); > > > > I believe this message is useful for debugging. > > I removed this because hugepage_settings.c is now moving out of > selftests, and converting the ksft_print_msg() calls to plain printf() > would break TAP output for selftests. > > I can add these diagnostic lines back, but since this is now a shared > helper, in order to preserve TAP compatibility, I'll have to do a > fprintf(stderr, "# ..."). I feel this would look a bit odd from a > non-selftest invocation though.
I think "# ... " is not that bad to begin with :) > Another option is to add a logging hook so selftests can wire this to > ksft_print_msg() while non-selftest users can use normal stderr, but > that feels too much for 2 print statements and would extend the scope of > this series. > > Please let me know if you have a preference here. -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
