On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 07:53 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 12.08.16 at 03:59, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> > So, I'm not sure whether the best route here is:
> >  - fully backport 6b53bb4ab3c9b;
> >  - backport only the last hunk of 6b53bb4ab3c9b as its own patch;
> >  - fold the last hunk of 6b53bb4ab3c9b in the backport of George's 
> >    patch (I mean, what was 83dff3992a89 in staging-4.6);
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> First of all - thanks a lot for helping out here. 
>
:-)

> With above extra
> commit things are indeed back to normal again for me. Since the
> adjustments to that commit to make it apply were mostly
> mechanical, I think I'd prefer taking the entire backport. 
>
Fine.

> Same
> for 4.5 then, were the backport adjusted for 4.6 then applied
> cleanly.
> 
So, you've done the backports yourself, and you don't want/need me to
do them right?

I'm asking because that's how I read what you're saying here, but I
don't see that having happened in staging-{4.5,4.6}. If that's me
failing to check, or checking in the wrong place, sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)