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.
