On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 at 12:06, yangyun <yangyun50@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since forget is not necessarily synchronous (In my opinion, the pre-this patch use of > synchronous 'fuse_force_forget' is an error case and also not necessarily synchronous), > what about just changing the 'fuse_force_forget' to be asynchronous? Even less impact would be to move the allocation inside fuse_force_forget (make it GFP_NOFAIL) and still use the fuse_queue_forget() function to send the forget as e.g. virtiofs handles them differently from regular requests. Thanks, Miklos
