Re: [PATCH v3 00/33] Implement kernel-doc in Python

Andy Shevchenko
2025-04-15T09:51:44Z

On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 04:40:34PM +0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Tue, 15 Apr 2025 11:19:26 +0300
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> escreveu:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 11:17:12AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:49:29AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 15 Apr 2025, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 10:01:04AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 09:17:51AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > > >> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> writes:
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 12:30:00PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > > > >> > >> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> writes:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > This changeset contains the kernel-doc.py script to replace the verable
> > > > >> > >> > kernel-doc originally written in Perl. It replaces the first version and the
> > > > >> > >> > second series I sent on the top of it.
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> OK, I've applied it, looked at the (minimal) changes in output, and
> > > > >> > >> concluded that it's good - all this stuff is now in docs-next. Many
> > > > >> > >> thanks for doing this!
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> I'm going to hold off on other documentation patches for a day or two
> > > > >> > >> just in case anything turns up. But it looks awfully good.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > This started well, until it becomes a scripts/lib/kdoc.
> > > > >> > > So, it makes the `make O=...` builds dirty *). Please make sure this doesn't leave
> > > > >> > > "disgusting turd" )as said by Linus) in the clean tree.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > *) it creates that __pycache__ disaster. And no, .gitignore IS NOT a solution.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If nothing else, "make cleandocs" should clean it up, certainly.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > We can also tell CPython to not create that directory at all. I'll run
> > > > >> > some tests to see what the effect is on the documentation build times;
> > > > >> > I'm guessing it will not be huge...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I do not build documentation at all, it's just a regular code build that leaves
> > > > >> tree dirty.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ python3 --version
> > > > >> Python 3.13.2
> > > > >>
> > > > >> It's standard Debian testing distribution, no customisation in the code.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To reproduce.
> > > > >> 1) I have just done a new build to reduce the churn, so, running make again does nothing;
> > > > >> 2) The following snippet in shell shows the issue
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ git clean -xdf
> > > > >> $ git status --ignored
> > > > >> On branch ...
> > > > >> nothing to commit, working tree clean
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ make LLVM=-19 O=.../out W=1 C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ -j64
> > > > >> make[1]: Entering directory '...'
> > > > >> GEN Makefile
> > > > >> DESCEND objtool
> > > > >> CALL .../scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> > > > >> INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
> > > > >> .pylintrc: warning: ignored by one of the .gitignore files
> > > > >> Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#23)
> > > > >> make[1]: Leaving directory '...'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ touch drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ make LLVM=-19 O=.../out W=1 C=1 CF=-D__CHECK_ENDIAN__ -j64
> > > > >> make[1]: Entering directory '...'
> > > > >> GEN Makefile
> > > > >> DESCEND objtool
> > > > >> CALL .../scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> > > > >> INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> OBJCOPY arch/x86/boot/setup.bin
> > > > >> BUILD arch/x86/boot/bzImage
> > > > >> Kernel: arch/x86/boot/bzImage is ready (#24)
> > > > >> make[1]: Leaving directory '...'
> > > > >>
> > > > >> $ git status --ignored
> > > > >> On branch ...
> > > > >> Untracked files:
> > > > >> (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
> > > > >> scripts/lib/kdoc/__pycache__/
> > > > >>
> > > > >> nothing added to commit but untracked files present (use "git add" to track)
> > > > >
> > > > > FWIW, I repeated this with removing the O=.../out folder completely, so it's
> > > > > fully clean build. Still the same issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > And it appears at the very beginning of the build. You don't need to wait to
> > > > > have the kernel to be built actually.
> > > >
> > > > kernel-doc gets run on source files for W=1 builds. See Makefile.build.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the clarification, so we know that it runs and we know that it has
> > > an issue.
> >
> > Ideal solution what would I expect is that the cache folder should respect
> > the given O=... argument, or disabled at all (but I don't think the latter
> > is what we want as it may slow down the build).
>
> From:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/commit/b193fa996a746111252156f11fb14c12fd6267e6
> and:
> https://peps.python.org/pep-3147/
>
> It sounds that Python 3.8 and above have a way to specify the cache
> location, via PYTHONPYCACHEPREFIX env var, and via "-X pycache_prefix=path".
>
> As the current minimal Python version is 3.9, we can safely use it.
>
> So, maybe this would work:
>
> make O="../out" PYTHONPYCACHEPREFIX="../out"
>
> or a variant of it:
>
> PYTHONPYCACHEPREFIX="../out" make O="../out"
>
> If this works, we can adjust the building system to fill PYTHONPYCACHEPREFIX
> env var when O= is used.

It works, the problem is that it should be automatically assigned to the
respective folder, so when compiling kdoc, it should be actually

$O/scripts/lib/kdoc/__pycache__

and so on for _each_ of the python code.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko