> @@ -1518,6 +1525,9 @@ static ssize_t fuse_direct_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > res = __fuse_direct_read(&io, to, &iocb->ki_pos); > } > + inode_unlock_shared(inode); > + > + file_accessed(iocb->ki_filp); Shouldn't the file_accessed() in different patch, with a description? It looks totally unrelated to locking? Thanks, Bernd