Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:47:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous
In-Reply-To: <20170620224814.GK21326@htj.duckdns.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706280945460.10525@east.gentwo.org>
References: <20170616085507.3cc7d4b8@gandalf.local.home> <20170619203538.GN12062@htj.duckdns.org> <20170619172750.6890df32@gandalf.local.home> <20170620204512.GI21326@htj.duckdns.org> <20170620145814.9eb1b74feaf908c39e9c0de2@linux-foundation.org>
 <20170620220011.GJ21326@htj.duckdns.org> <20170620182205.6e0390d8@grimm.local.home> <20170620224814.GK21326@htj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 727
Lines: 16

On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Tejun Heo wrote:

> And we have to weight that against the possibility of breakage from
> the backport, however low it may be, right?  I'm not strongly
> convinced either way on this one and AFAICS the slub sysfs files there
> are mostly for debugging, so we'd be risking breakage in a way more
> common path (kmem_cache destruction) to avoid unlikely deadlock with a
> debug facility.  I think -stable backports should be conservative and
> justified as breaking things through -stable undermines the whole
> thing.

The sysfs files are mainly used for reporting (the "slabinfo" tool
accesses these files f.e.)

But given the high rate of breakage of sysfs related patches: Lets just
skip stable for now.