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.

Regards,
Salvatore