On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 07:49:56AM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 04:59:26PM +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:34:41PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 03:59:04PM +0100, Donald Buczek wrote: > > > > On 02/05/19 12:59, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > > > > > > > > Are you planning to submit the same as well for 4.9 LTS? The two > > > > > commits apply on top of 4.9.154 with line number updated. > > > > > > > > No, I'm not, because I didn't do any testing with 4.9. > > > > > > > > Additionally, I'm unsure about the right procedure for trivial backports > > > > to multiple trees: Individual patch sets, which apply perfectly, a single > > > > patch sets and Greg resolves that for the other trees or maybe no patch > > > > set at all and just a "please cherry-pick .... from upstream" mail. > > > > > > The first patch in this series applies to 4.9.y, but the second does > > > not. > > > > > > I'll be glad to take a backported, and tested, series, if someone still > > > cares about NFS for 4.9.y. But unless you really care about that tree, > > > I would not worry about it. > > > > Hmm, both apply on top of 4.9.155, still but with line numbers > > adjusted (I'm attaching the respective rebased patches). Actually my > > question on the respective backports was originally triggered due to > > https://bugs-devel.debian.org/898060 > > > > The problem actually is on the 'tested' part, as Donald did no > > testing/reproducing with 4.9 itself. > > Attached rebased to apply on top of 4.9.156. Thanks, both now queued up. greg k-h
