From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] docs: kdoc: Improve the output text accumulation
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 06:49:26 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0sux57t.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250711081400.78731086@foz.lan>
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> writes:
> Em Thu, 10 Jul 2025 17:30:20 -0600
> Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> escreveu:
>
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.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).
Yes, I understood that part
> 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".
OK, I'll ponder on a different name :)
Perhaps the new not_emit() could even be aware of --none and just drop
the data on the floor.
Thanks,
jon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-11 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-02 22:35 [PATCH 00/12] [PATCH 00/11] Thrash up the parser/output interface Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 01/12] docs: kdoc; Add a rudimentary class to represent output items Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 5:28 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 02/12] docs: kdoc: simplify the output-item passing Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 5:29 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 03/12] docs: kdoc: drop "sectionlist" Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-09 16:27 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 04/12] docs: kdoc: Centralize handling of the item section list Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 5:45 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 13:25 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 05/12] docs: kdoc: remove the "struct_actual" machinery Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:11 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 06/12] docs: kdoc: use self.entry.parameterlist directly in check_sections() Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:12 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 07/12] docs: kdoc: Coalesce parameter-list handling Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:20 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 08/12] docs: kdoc: Regularize the use of the declaration name Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:22 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 09/12] docs: kdoc: straighten up dump_declaration() Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:25 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 13:27 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 22:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 10/12] docs: kdoc: directly access the always-there KdocItem fields Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:27 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 11/12] docs: kdoc: clean up check_sections() Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:29 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-02 22:35 ` [PATCH 12/12] docs: kdoc: Improve the output text accumulation Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-10 6:41 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 7:13 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 8:19 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 10:10 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 10:31 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 10:59 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-10 23:30 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-11 6:14 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-11 12:49 ` Jonathan Corbet [this message]
2025-07-11 16:28 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2025-07-11 16:39 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-03 2:07 ` [PATCH 00/12] [PATCH 00/11] Thrash up the parser/output interface Yanteng Si
2025-07-09 15:29 ` Jonathan Corbet
2025-07-09 16:21 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y0sux57t.fsf@trenco.lwn.net \
--to=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=akiyks@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab+huawei@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®