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. > 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. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
