| Message ID | 1367845365-13316-1-git-send-email-yann.morin.1998@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit : > From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > > When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance. > > Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the > length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted > alphabetically. > > Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> > Cc: Roland Eggner <edvx1@systemanalysen.net> > Cc: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com> > --- > scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :) However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly have other definitions. So in the end you have somewhat complex code for a sort order which may surprise or confuse the user. It may put close to each other options which are completely unrelated, and suboptions very far from their parent. I am wondering if it might not be better to go for a more simple strategy: exact match on top and then sort alphabetically. Or even just sort alphabetically - now that I know regexps are supported, it is easy to get the exact match when I need it. Just my two cents, maybe others have a diverging opinion. Thanks for your work anyway,
Jean, All, On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:28:32PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit : > > From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > > > > When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance. > > > > Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the > > length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted > > alphabetically. > > > > Reported-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > > Signed-off-by: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > > Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> > > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@suse.cz> > > Cc: Roland Eggner <edvx1@systemanalysen.net> > > Cc: Wang YanQing <udknight@gmail.com> > > --- > > scripts/kconfig/symbol.c | 66 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for > originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :) > > However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your > definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be > immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was > that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than > the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly > have other definitions. Yes, I understand. That was mostly a proposal. I'm open for discussion! :-) > So in the end you have somewhat complex code for a sort order which may > surprise or confuse the user. It may put close to each other options > which are completely unrelated, and suboptions very far from their > parent. The notion of "sub-options" is very fuzzy: as symbols are stored in an hash-based array, it is not possible to now how they relate to each other order-wise, once the parsing of the Kconfig is done. So we can't expect the search results to reflect the 'proximity' of symbol declarations. > I am wondering if it might not be better to go for a more simple > strategy: exact match on top and then sort alphabetically. Or even just > sort alphabetically - now that I know regexps are supported, it is easy > to get the exact match when I need it. Also, to prefer exact match requires we check how much of the symbol name was matched (hence my initial 'relevance' heuristic). However, here is a proposal for another heuristic that seems to work relatively well for me (but is a very little bit more complex, I'm afraid), that tries hard to get the most relevant symbols first: Compare matched symbols as thus: - first, symbols with a prompt, [1] - then, smallest offset, [2] - then, shortest match, [3] - then, highest relevance, [4] - finally, alphabetical sort [5] When searching for 'P.*CI' : [1] Symbols of interest are probably those with a prompt, as they can be changed, while symbols with no prompt are only for info. Thus: PCIEASPM comes before PCI_ATS [2] Symbols that match earlier in the name are to be preferred over symbols which match later. Thus: PCI_MSI comes before WDTPCI [3] The shortest match is (IMHO) more interesting than a longer one. Thus: PCI comes before PCMCIA [4] The relevance is the ratio of the length of the match against the length of the symbol. The more of a symbol name we match, the more instersting that symbol is. Thus: PCIEAER comes before PCIEASPM [5] As fallback, sort symbols alphabetically (no example, it's explicit enough, I guess :-) ) Of course 'P.*CI' is really a torture-test search, real searches will probably be more precise in the first place. This heuristic seems to also work well with real searches. YMMV, of course... What do you (and others!) think about this? I'll post the patch shortly for testing. > Thanks for your work anyway, Cheers! :-) Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 05:28:32PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > Le Monday 06 May 2013 à 15:02 +0200, Yann E. MORIN a écrit : > > From: "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@free.fr> > > > > When searching for symbols, return the symbols sorted by relevance. > > > > Relevance is the ratio of the length of the matched string and the > > length of the symbol name. Symbols of equal relevance are sorted > > alphabetically. > I did not look at the code, only tested it, and it does what I asked for > originally: exact match is listed first. So thank you :) > > However I am not sure if your implementation is what we want. Your > definition of "relevance" is somewhat arbitrary and may not be > immediately to others. For example, my own definition of "relevance" was > that symbols which start with the subject string are more relevant than > the symbols which have the string in the middle. Others would possibly > have other definitions. But no matter what the definition of relevance in text search, in the middle or start or end, the searcher always want the "results" look like what they input literal. I think Yann's definition make sense. It is just a pattern matching ratio question. If you want in start, just use ^PCI(reguar search), then with the help of this patch, will make people life easier. This patch is not to replace the regular search, you can just use them together. BTW, I haven't read the code right now, maybe I will read it tonight. I test it, it works well, and I find it is useful to use it with regular search. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c index ecc5aa5..baba030 100644 --- a/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c +++ b/scripts/kconfig/symbol.c @@ -943,38 +943,86 @@ const char *sym_escape_string_value(const char *in) return res; } +struct sym_match { + struct symbol *sym; + int rel; +}; + +/* Compare matched symbols as thus: + * - highest relevance first + * - equal relevance sorted alphabetically + */ +static int sym_rel_comp( const void *sym1, const void *sym2 ) +{ + struct sym_match **s1 = (struct sym_match **)sym1; + struct sym_match **s2 = (struct sym_match **)sym2; + + if ( (*s1)->rel > (*s2)->rel ) + return -1; + else if ( (*s1)->rel < (*s2)->rel ) + return 1; + else + return strcmp( (*s1)->sym->name, (*s2)->sym->name ); +} + struct symbol **sym_re_search(const char *pattern) { struct symbol *sym, **sym_arr = NULL; + struct sym_match **sym_match_arr = NULL; int i, cnt, size; regex_t re; + regmatch_t match[1]; cnt = size = 0; /* Skip if empty */ if (strlen(pattern) == 0) return NULL; - if (regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_EXTENDED|REG_NOSUB|REG_ICASE)) + if (regcomp(&re, pattern, REG_EXTENDED|REG_ICASE)) return NULL; for_all_symbols(i, sym) { + struct sym_match *tmp_sym_match; if (sym->flags & SYMBOL_CONST || !sym->name) continue; - if (regexec(&re, sym->name, 0, NULL, 0)) + if (regexec(&re, sym->name, 1, match, 0)) continue; if (cnt + 1 >= size) { - void *tmp = sym_arr; + void *tmp; size += 16; - sym_arr = realloc(sym_arr, size * sizeof(struct symbol *)); - if (!sym_arr) { - free(tmp); - return NULL; + tmp = realloc(sym_match_arr, size * sizeof(struct sym_match *)); + if (!tmp) { + goto sym_re_search_free; } + sym_match_arr = tmp; } sym_calc_value(sym); - sym_arr[cnt++] = sym; + tmp_sym_match = (struct sym_match*)malloc(sizeof(struct sym_match)); + if (!tmp_sym_match) + goto sym_re_search_free; + tmp_sym_match->sym = sym; + /* As regexec return 0, we know we have a match, so + * we can use match[0].rm_[se]o without further checks + */ + tmp_sym_match->rel = (100*(match[0].rm_eo-match[0].rm_so)) + /strlen(sym->name); + sym_match_arr[cnt++] = tmp_sym_match; } - if (sym_arr) + + if( sym_match_arr ) { + qsort( sym_match_arr, cnt, sizeof(struct sym_match*), sym_rel_comp ); + sym_arr = malloc( (cnt+1) * sizeof(struct symbol) ); + if (!sym_arr) + goto sym_re_search_free; + for ( i=0; i<cnt; i++ ) + sym_arr[i] = sym_match_arr[i]->sym; sym_arr[cnt] = NULL; + } +sym_re_search_free: + if (sym_match_arr) { + for ( i=0; i<cnt; i++ ) + free( sym_match_arr[i] ); + free( sym_match_arr ); + } regfree(&re); return sym_arr;