From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>,
Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] devtools: rewrite doc vs code check in Python
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 08:33:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <arTSOhHVEOKr7U06@bricha3-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260923135430.7e16c673@phoenix.local>
On Wed, Sep 23, 2026 at 01:54:30PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 21:19:45 +0200
> Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> > 23/09/2026 20:42, Stephen Hemminger:
> > > The existing check-doc-vs-code.sh only compares rte_flow items and
> > > actions, and only for drivers whose directory matches the ini name,
> > > so none of the drivers under net/intel are checked.
> > >
> > > Replace it and parse-flow-support.sh with a Python script covering
> > > the whole NIC feature matrix:
> > [...]
> > > devtools/check-doc-vs-code.py | 1132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > devtools/check-doc-vs-code.sh | 84 --
> > > devtools/parse-flow-support.sh | 92 --
> > > doc/guides/contributing/new_driver.rst | 4 +-
> > > doc/guides/contributing/patches.rst | 27 +
> > > doc/guides/nics/features.rst | 5 +
> > > 8 files changed, 1169 insertions(+), 180 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100755 devtools/check-doc-vs-code.py
> > > delete mode 100755 devtools/check-doc-vs-code.sh
> > > delete mode 100755 devtools/parse-flow-support.sh
> >
> > Thanks for working on it.
> >
> > My concern is how easy it is to maintain for all contributors
> > having to insert their rules and exceptions?
> >
> > It is replacing less 200 lines with more than 1000 lines
> > so it looks a lot more complex.
> > It is probably fully generated by AI?
> > Can we make it simpler?
> >
> >
>
> The other suggestion would be to git rid of the .ini file method
> of generating this feature matrix in doc and just have python script
> generate it. Prefer a single source of truth, less work
+1, I was just going to suggest that when I saw the discussion on this
script.
In case of autogeneration, for cases like "partial" support, we can have a
well-defined comment tag or similar in the code to mark it.
/Bruce
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-24 7:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-23 18:42 [RFC] devtools: rewrite doc vs code check in Python Stephen Hemminger
2026-09-23 18:44 ` Stephen Hemminger
2026-09-23 19:19 ` Thomas Monjalon
2026-09-23 20:11 ` Stephen Hemminger
2026-09-23 20:54 ` Stephen Hemminger
2026-09-24 7:33 ` Bruce Richardson [this message]
2026-09-24 8:36 ` Thomas Monjalon
2026-09-24 15:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
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=arTSOhHVEOKr7U06@bricha3-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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