linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 12/12] docs: kdoc: Improve the output text accumulation

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]

Message-ID: <20250711081400.78731086@foz.lan>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 08:14:00 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa
 <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] docs: kdoc: Improve the output text accumulation

Em Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:30:20 -0600
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> escreveu:

> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > With that, I would just drop this patch, as the performance is
> > almost identical, and using "emit()" instead of "+=" IMO makes
> > the code less clear.  
> 
> I've dropped the patch - for now - but I really disagree with the latter
> part of that sentence.  It is far better, IMO, to encapsulate the
> construction of our output rather than spreading vast numbers of direct
> string concatenations throughout the code.  So this one will likely be
> back in a different form :)

The main concern was related to performance penalty - as based on
the latest test results, Pyhon currently handles very poorly list
concat (30% to 200% slower at the latest test results).

Yet, at least for me with my C-trained brain parsing, I find "=+" a
lot easier to understand than some_function().

Btw, IMHO Python is not particularly great with names for concat/accumulate
commands. For list, it is append(), for set it is add(). Yet, "+=" is almost
universal (from standard types, only sets don't accept it, using, 
instead, "|=", which kind of makes sense).

Adding a function naming emit() - at least for me - requires an extra brain 
processing time to remember that emit is actually a function that doesn't
produce any emission: it just stores data for a future output - that may 
even not happen if one calls the script with "--none".

Thanks,
Mauro