On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 09:47:35AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> Similarly would could wrap __fput_sync() is a more friendly name, but
> that would be better if we actually renamed the function.
>
> void fput_now(struct file *f)
> {
> __fput_sync(f);
> }
It is unfriendly *precisely* because it should not be used without
a very good reason.
It may be the last opened file keeping a lazy-umounted mount alive.
It may be taking pretty much any locks, or eating a lot of stack
space.
It really isn't a general-purpose API; any "more friendly name"
is going to be NAKed for that reason alone.
Al, very much tempted to send a patch renaming that sucker to
__fput_dont_use_that_unless_you_really_know_what_you_are_doing().
