From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 784EF3054F0; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:56:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757444181; cv=none; b=g6h3DlGLtQsllHqHKOWL88H+0HtIbS5h3x0u/hOEFfvnJE6vB9I9u/Q8YRK8UCcgmpHqnZAXqbs+60yI6Mb9/vNVE1rmGsAfbrWGeOdx7jrjBbjY9z5tDkC0IZsNeoGq/JUvZbEOKQ76s0S034qHCngnMV5gu8QpEPE2DWQfK7I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757444181; c=relaxed/simple; bh=bAAacRTwBvWHbThT5dskMzgCZyjQ3m5UWQ9AiPes6xQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=AoFtBy4QsS2xbW3Rq6NK9I0akLo5izAqeWMwgGNVnpw9ObQGGbzqa7jbAQb1V93YvwX20rIeD/exlmR8F/QUTrYk6IO8lRvYzhUdQcxQ1FLKsr0Cwu1PDnqxMlvXI6Zks6mXL22Q4324EQfufWefXrtPqQ0N5HxhNwzlWPeT/Go= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=AVg4RGjn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="AVg4RGjn" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 6C14D40AF9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1757444178; bh=/Ai2lGZUTpRw+R7WvDqNiYrO2zQdMsjjZca0cQdGh1E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=AVg4RGjn62ceUBV+3muvLzqUFtXbqeApMY+PIg+AElShltL0z0V5ZQnpJl7F3jSRI cLXdgZsSr4CfOfBcV1auTWiYgQk91mVZN7oG0/255ACCZqeeW6F/QR18us/vH3NMH4 jwe0WOtQoNktk5QpuIG4z3n8ho9Pv+xhlK+IgIExsXvXcTLWGcyzcjZCjYk1XOcqEb ItqqhObC7PgNVSU3jghDmPZNNITxbUKJEmxatD27h2tS3nxnOhzIFFkBdp31DZd9Ub 658v96a3lLbPKbmrgbBV/vx7nMSO166vXuWem/+e4pv/1K+unW/xgzsInm0linCjv3 2krcxXnByMz3A== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:2da9::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C14D40AF9; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:56:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Linux Doc Mailing List , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Roy Baron , Alex Gaynor , Alice Ryhl , Boqun Feng , Gary Guo , Trevor Gross , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/19] tools/docs: sphinx-build-wrapper: add a wrapper for sphinx-build In-Reply-To: <7tk2mkydbcblodhipoddued5smsc3ifnmeqen5wv7eu3mbmvgi@nwxqo5366umj> References: <87plbzwubl.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> <7tk2mkydbcblodhipoddued5smsc3ifnmeqen5wv7eu3mbmvgi@nwxqo5366umj> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 12:56:17 -0600 Message-ID: <87y0qnv4j2.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mauro Carvalho Chehab writes: > Basically, what happens is that the number of jobs can be on > different places: There is a lot of complexity there, and spread out between __init__(), run_sphinx(), and handle_pdf(). Is there any way to create a single figure_out_how_many_damn_jobs() and coalesce that logic there? That would help make that part of the system a bit more comprehensible. That said, I've been unable to make this change break in my testing. I guess I'm not seeing a lot of impediments to applying the next version at this point. Thanks, jon