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 C518A30EF67; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:06:40 +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=1761581202; cv=none; b=uO2xf2Jk9pXvS0llNhqL37eYz4bGDahHkfUVnH30DVV8MA79uZIORiGhORn7LPV7TKvz2G+dIXmxI30UZSepH92b7o9hfJcf1CAJvzoeeax5BPjJt+GsWRqaq8PKSgRHGeT9arwMPeA1XkXphkzAHLVz7aViV+OZMnasnsgbaQI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761581202; c=relaxed/simple; bh=U7hGCQMZzCKM4zX96RoFePsPI76AOR86oQ82PJVm/Xw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=aVIi3ATMoFeYlmOH/doz2mTHAVC0ltgiyNVfDa1B3p15MM79MyvhpCRJCm5vrQt83/QNTWwuZNyO6S4jvpQsu7di4OK1kbGYBVCd47gJclCsiuo2Hca8X2aTAAwzBUy9yaJuz1vtE5drB4srRH0tAWkiypC91CKYD/GZR741Mws= 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=ajGTKZTt; 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="ajGTKZTt" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 5085840B18 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1761581194; bh=vQOKca11sHg2oiUoYPo4YwicPuO1vRZcUgu5szp3BLk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ajGTKZTt1t4ord0I/77m/rA+UjQ15SG6KQSDiCEHXRkpM/M5Zaq1DHaJSJRYzVoxF bBCRLZCzY+kg6KqPSbrA408oIODkZLNBoVF5eInaqasgjVcZSP2cZ0VPLv4CTPptjg XgLtfA0JxmMXUc+7dMhRjFdRy4LjxMrKrxIgGtS26J7MoGtyv/BE9LLi+ocqNHZZQZ BWyRHinzHt0W0t0kli7vCp5iHnafHidJa2zVQLGi9RWZDPKXnqsu1Bpjk8+Ndkw22l tN8IYpYgzXfPf18IQKrPradVMfVaCQPiVwjI+LVjNr6NCMkL1/wkcDUz8b6GqyCnae z6seuczk7pn2w== Received: from localhost (c-73-14-55-248.hsd1.co.comcast.net [73.14.55.248]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5085840B18; Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:06:34 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Salvatore Bonaccorso , Andreas Radke Cc: stable , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sasha Levin , Zhixu Liu , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Please backport commit 00d95fcc4dee ("docs: kdoc: handle the obsolescensce of docutils.ErrorString()") to v6.17.y In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2025 10:06:33 -0600 Message-ID: <87wm4gpbw6.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 Salvatore Bonaccorso writes: > Hi, > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 08:36:00AM +0100, Andreas Radke wrote: >> For kernel 6.12 there's just one more place required to add the fix: >> >> --- a/Documentation/sphinx/kernel_abi.py 2025-10-23 16:20:48.000000000 +0200 >> +++ b/Documentation/sphinx/kernel_abi.py.new 2025-10-26 08:08:33.168985951 +0100 >> @@ -42,9 +42,11 @@ >> from docutils import nodes, statemachine >> from docutils.statemachine import ViewList >> from docutils.parsers.rst import directives, Directive >> -from docutils.utils.error_reporting import ErrorString >> from sphinx.util.docutils import switch_source_input >> >> +def ErrorString(exc): # Shamelessly stolen from docutils >> + return f'{exc.__class__.__name}: {exc}' >> + >> __version__ = '1.0' >> >> def setup(app): > > Yes this is why I asked Jonathan, how to handle backports to older > series, if it is wanted to pick specifically as well faccc0ec64e1 > ("docs: sphinx/kernel_abi: adjust coding style") or a partial backport > of it, or do a 6.12.y backport of 00d95fcc4dee with additional > changes (like you pointed out). > > I'm just not sure what is preferred here. I'm not sure it matters that much...the additional change suggested by Andreas seems fine. It's just a backport, and it shouldn't break anything, so doesn't seem worth a lot of worry. Thanks, jon