Re: [PATCH 12/14] doc-rst: add ABI documentation to the admin-guide book
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Date: Mon Jun 17 2019 - 09:56:58 EST
Em Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:36:17 +0300
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu:
> 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
> perl tool.
> 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.
Actually, it is a perl script that can be used standalone (just like
get_maintainers.pl and kernel-doc) with have some features including
producing a ReST output. We could easily get rid of the python extension,
if we add this to the Makefile (adjusted to work with O= option):
./scripts/get_api.pl rest > Documentation/output/admin-guide/abi.rst
> > 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.
Yeah, I guess it should be possible to do that. How a python script
can identify if it was called by Sphinx, or if it was called directly?