Re: [PATCH 12/14] doc-rst: add ABI documentation to the admin-guide book
From: Jani Nikula
Date: Mon Jun 17 2019 - 08:38:18 EST
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Em Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:06:03 +0200
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 04:42:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> > 2) Have the python extension read the ABI files directly, without an
>> > extra pipeline.
>> He who writes the script, get's to dictate the language of the script :)
The point is, it's an extension to a python based tool, written in perl,
using pipes for communication, and losing any advantages of integrating
with the tool it's extending.
I doubt you'd want to see system() to be used to subsequently extend the
I think it's just sad to see the documentation system slowly drift
further away from the ideals we had, and towards the old ways we worked
so hard to fix.
> No idea about how much time it would take if written in python,
> but this perl script is really fast:
> $ time ./scripts/get_abi.pl search voltage_max >/dev/null
> real 0m0,139s
> user 0m0,132s
> sys 0m0,006s
> That's the time it takes here (SSD disks) to read all files under
> Documentation/ABI, parse them and seek for a string.
> That's about half of the time a python script takes to just import the
> the sphinx modules and print its version, running at the same machine:
> $ time sphinx-build --version >/dev/null
> real 0m0,224s
> user 0m0,199s
> sys 0m0,024s
Please at least use fair and sensible comparisons. If you want to make
the extension usable standalone on the command-line, bypassing Sphinx,
you can do that. No need to factor in Sphinx to your comparisons.
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center