[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1706280945460.10525@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:47:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: make sysfs file removal asynchronous
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.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists