linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/14] doc-rst: add ABI documentation to the admin-guide book

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2019 10:51:54 -0300
From:   Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>
To:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...pensource.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] doc-rst: add ABI documentation to the admin-guide
 book

Em Mon, 17 Jun 2019 15:36:17 +0300
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com> escreveu:

> On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Em Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:06:03 +0200
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> 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?

Thanks,
Mauro