Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous

[Christoph Lameter]

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.