@@ -62,10 +62,8 @@ _test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, con
#define _check_numbers_template(arg_fmt, expect, str, fmt, n_args, ap) \
do { \
- pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
for (; n_args > 0; n_args--, expect++) { \
typeof(*expect) got = *va_arg(ap, typeof(expect)); \
- pr_debug("\t" arg_fmt "\n", got); \
if (got != *expect) { \
pr_warn("%s:%d, vsscanf(\"%s\", \"%s\", ...) expected " arg_fmt " got " arg_fmt "\n", \
file, line, str, fmt, *expect, got); \
@@ -689,7 +687,6 @@ do { \
total_tests++; \
len = snprintf(test_buffer, BUF_SIZE, gen_fmt, expect); \
got = (fn)(test_buffer, &endp, base); \
- pr_debug(#fn "(\"%s\", %d) -> " gen_fmt "\n", test_buffer, base, got); \
if (got != (expect)) { \
fail = true; \
pr_warn(#fn "(\"%s\", %d): got " gen_fmt " expected " gen_fmt "\n", \
Remove `pr_debug` calls which emit information already contained in `pr_warn` calls that occur on test failure. This reduces unhelpful test verbosity. Note that a `pr_debug` removed from `_check_numbers_template` appears to have been the only guard against silent false positives, but in fact this condition is handled in `_test`; it is only possible for `n_args` to be `0` in `_check_numbers_template` if the test explicitly expects it *and* `vsscanf` returns `0`, matching the expectation. Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@gmail.com> --- lib/test_scanf.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)