On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 10:15, Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think you're at least missing the removal of the PF_KTHREAD check
Yup.
> It'd be neat to leave that in so
> __fput_sync() doesn't get proliferated to non PF_KTHREAD without us
> noticing. So maybe we just need a tiny primitive.
Considering that over the decade we've had this, we've only grown two
cases of actually using it, I think we're fine.
Also, the name makes it fairly explicit what it's all about, so I
wouldn't worry.
Linus
