Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:34:41 +0100
From:   Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To:     Donald Buczek <buczek@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, bfields@fieldses.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.14 0/2] Two nfsd4 fixes for 4.14 longterm
Message-ID: <20190211133441.GA17709@kroah.com>
References: <20190205100141.25304-1-buczek@molgen.mpg.de>
 <20190205115948.azdwswkyetbop56r@lorien.valinor.li>
 <7a263d82-27e7-077f-3a51-78180785a41f@molgen.mpg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7a263d82-27e7-077f-3a51-78180785a41f@molgen.mpg.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.

thanks,

greg k-h