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.

Regards,
Salvatore