From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sender4-op-o15.zoho.com (sender4-op-o15.zoho.com [136.143.188.15]) (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 C81681531E8; Sat, 4 Apr 2026 07:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.188.15 ARC-Seal:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775289066; cv=pass; b=YPT11dJWF4wx6gJoqbWdmqFLe70GF/lXRanzuIqKzNtb5wlnap0gKg6pUJ7wiISFsq+oC+Wm3B2I7w6Ao98o84NsWQ2QBuq65z9x7b3DxE1YquABWSVOSTGwB0EM65j1GZBeIdWZUffsjwLJBvFAk5b6h8IoAexa7p/XyZhw+5c= ARC-Message-Signature:i=2; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775289066; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6PZtCi0Prk4Sg1qzP4DNSyjQidhu2jQ8o4nQ1vPgsCg=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:To:Subject:Cc:From: In-Reply-To:References; b=iWVNGyrnwhjmlwLhCBuvVH86zKRSYeSMchAenNlWEilgBKTH09Si7ZfdJgmu94bohmJ6gvHZbX6O8hIbhz6QHYCkMvAe5fP6QRiV2GIraItFQ/OGRtABTjswqWKEoZCzxDYCSfCP7SB/K9fw1MCdR7Jf1kZkAYr4F3RWwr1zIco= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=2; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ritovision.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ritovision.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritovision.com header.i=rito@ritovision.com header.b=bpE7BRGL; arc=pass smtp.client-ip=136.143.188.15 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=ritovision.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ritovision.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ritovision.com header.i=rito@ritovision.com header.b="bpE7BRGL" ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1775289047; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=lPiAgzhpkuExfDxfStQaAiL2cKw91oQDrbR0rPj7gW6uYWN2Nc6OlPh4u2u3SYMrRTDSISlwtDV9CrL8gnkcxr0KaDHpM2syxY/UynPnFhaPKPerqBsJqKFkM23xjlw8x4zItpRLAp4BoFpxOwGwr6p1nZF1tL+t2Z40byfCg4c= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1775289047; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=6PZtCi0Prk4Sg1qzP4DNSyjQidhu2jQ8o4nQ1vPgsCg=; b=Fd7b2QC0xcmT+XDrkgTWL1lF4USwkUy9pcy/Dw2NdsUf+rr+4+1YLX0nTb5ZyTJgq8BpSSh5BhaN6yVUfVNDq8BPnejS7zNbvoLDRgfBTh0k6JRX37u2MjpyOrbpOE+uv+CTTox4vsMn2ZddtFncqDwsYBfVrL6ztlm+jNoYn78= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=ritovision.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rito@ritovision.com; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1775289047; s=zmail; d=ritovision.com; i=rito@ritovision.com; h=Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Date:Date:Message-Id:Message-Id:To:To:Subject:Subject:Cc:Cc:From:From:In-Reply-To:References:Reply-To; bh=6PZtCi0Prk4Sg1qzP4DNSyjQidhu2jQ8o4nQ1vPgsCg=; b=bpE7BRGLXNFNDykg9U4NnivToceGkIHWlpMNvFSmMp1HksvzajastZHT32qlPxvG i+nFAsVqbB6dqvXZji7luKiqWE4RZRVAd/dHzAb3v66PKb8SlHSiDVmkpyaThKjUy3C fTgbXzHY4pAs9lriK80NyGxYWuj9XGVReewUlY3M= Received: by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1775289043903734.341021653271; Sat, 4 Apr 2026 00:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2026 03:50:40 -0400 Message-Id: To: "Randy Dunlap" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] docs: advanced search with benchmark harness Cc: , From: "Rito Rhymes" X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0 In-Reply-To: <20260321181511.11706-1-rito@ritovision.com> References: <20260321181511.11706-1-rito@ritovision.com> X-ZohoMailClient: External Randy, I meant to include you on the v3 reroll; this new version is intended to address the compatibility issue you hit earlier in our initial test and debugging (among other improvements). I believe the problem came from version-dependent differences in the generated Sphinx search data, so this reroll hardens the compatibility handling around those differences and the search logic that consumes the data. If you have time to try it again with the setup that exposed the problem before, I would appreciate confirmation that the updated version behaves correctly there. I would also appreciate your broader assessment of the feature: whether it seems genuinely useful in practice, how large the benefit is relative to the current Quick Search interface, how many other users you think would benefit from it, and whether you see any remaining issues or obvious room for improvement. Rito