Tableview
Sorry to disagree, I don't see them as separate matters at all.
The first decision (to not go around but to land) led directly to the need for the second (the requirement for all-out braking and high energy turn off the runway) which may, or may not have stressed the landing gear possibly requiring some maintenance action before next flight.
Generally, when cleared to land, the runway is the pilots to use as required, and all of it if necessary.
It is never quite that simple though - it never is!
For example:
1. The might be a reduced length available due work in progress - this will usually be known well in advance and the pilot will plan accordingly. If insufficient length remains available, then the crew would normally ask for a longer runway if available all the way up to diverting somewhere else. Normally the operation would have taken this into account however at the planning stage.
2. Some countries (USA as an example) have a Land and hold short operation (LAHSO) where you are expected to land using a reduced length, often before a crossing runway used for take-offs or landings. Many international operators (often using larger aircraft) file their ATC light plan as 'LAHSO not approved', so this shouldn't be requested.
3. ATC may request you to 'expedite vacating' if another aircraft is raather close behind you. That is fine, but if you can't help it's not your problem. Having said that, MOST pilots will do all they can as they will have been the aircraft tight behind themselves many times.
HTH