+10
−7
+5
−18
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
This simplifies the RCU to refcounting code in particular. I was originally intending to leave this for later, but walking through all the dput() logic (see previous commit), I realized that the dput() "might_sleep()" check was misleadingly weak. And I removed it as misleading, both for performance profiling and for debugging. However, the might_sleep() debugging case is actually true: the final dput() can indeed sleep, if the inode of the dentry that you are releasing ends up sleeping at iput time (see dentry_iput()). So the problem with the might_sleep() in dput() wasn't that it wasn't true, it was that it wasn't actually testing and triggering on the interesting case. In particular, just about *any* dput() can indeed sleep, if you happen to race with another thread deleting the file in question, and you then lose the race to the be the last dput() for that file. But because it's a very rare race, the debugging code would never trigger it in practice. Why is this problematic? The new d_rcu_to_refcount() (see commit 15570086: "vfs: reimplement d_rcu_to_refcount() using lockref_get_or_lock()") does a dput() for the failure case, and it does it under the RCU lock. So potentially sleeping really is a bug. But there's no way I'm going to fix this with the previous complicated "lockref_get_or_lock()" interface. And rather than revert to the old and crufty nested dentry locking code (which did get this right by delaying the reference count updates until they were verified to be safe), let's make forward progress. Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by:Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE