From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 C5E9540EB9D; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:42:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786113776; cv=none; b=lLlB6nSCPSt6Y53Zfvt/9kISC85BwEHioCk/lC5UZKh8Vpf8UHb8CQn3ZnJ7tsMUUw4jmhsiUwCS5xrlqVwWkjMyqsdtEXXxikUk9E2vY6vCI5K0BXqL6x8F/rMPZU8heuHuPLIw+3EA97hvo+zZdNdHEMrfOXxPHQ1lAE9Ti8Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786113776; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8J7X4bC7srpt7BtuAthIQ3qO3yZkJcIo+hXqN32RRMM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=k9pglubOxEEpNz0VNcdFInTr8A8N9LOgLY5bWyr1G2xQAcPOiJTJ7zUuydnRfn2B83nqAKUkpYRCffN9atoHf4lXkeqmIVqn8TUIHOdj7SkzEyL4L3RozF2kMgDvXuyjPlBNjKC833m7hv7gjfW9kR5tzFsYMLw8HUxXzi3y0lk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=GrkSgrtS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="GrkSgrtS" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net ABCBE408B3 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1786113747; bh=dHXW1gOcUuJhhq6B93P+MF5l5SyFLJfWplXPidiVx7A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=GrkSgrtSDhCfTpCYuFPPaa9P7BCMBQBPrBSrRr0tkW3whaDFHDsqZsvkV30dG7/Gc UZzV1tVI9ofaC2gfsOjkHc+fBdsTOTStRS5qFBp41jFV3qhWKH/dWfht6lZR9tngcm 15rd+QXLDY8EN/cKzzovgyNftWACWA5nz4Tgs7tBlwK61dEbV+CZzDx9fYgIPpCil6 dYnfTbN3sEc0lXjxLnIIsidQbnWV9BC680kda9n5HccREEzigpGqQrntFOvVESjMYC Z8Q6iZRGvN535aj74S3x1XDZt5PePlcne7vx1bT0UuuFjbfNA0hR2BE3tYi+m8i6E6 BdpjPhF+C4q9g== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ABCBE408B3; Fri, 7 Aug 2026 14:42:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Alison Schofield , sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev Cc: linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: python: abi_regex: catch the right exception for a bad regex In-Reply-To: References: <20260807000345.86D851F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2026 08:42:26 -0600 Message-ID: <87v79mkn59.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Alison Schofield writes: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 12:03:44AM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote: >> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: >> - [Medium] The patch replaces `re.PatternError` with `re.error` rather than catching both, directly contradicting the commit message and exposing a misunderstanding of standard Python. > > It does indeed catch both by simply using 're.error'. > > re.PatternError is not a separate exception because re.error was > kept as an alias for backward compatibility. > > So yes, a bit of secret sauce not obvious in the commit message. > > I'll wait a bit and see if Maintainers want a respin with a commit > log update for that. [Almost missed this - said maintainers respond more reliably when copied on the emails]. Explaining that you're catching the superclass error would have been better, certainly. Respin if you like but, in this case, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. Thanks, jon