+29
−6
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。
During the LPC RCU BoF Paul asked how come the "USED" <- "IN-NMI" detector doesn't trip over rcu_read_lock()'s lockdep annotation. Looking into this I found a very embarrasing typo in verify_lock_unused(): - if (!(class->usage_mask & LOCK_USED)) + if (!(class->usage_mask & LOCKF_USED)) fixing that will indeed cause rcu_read_lock() to insta-splat :/ The above typo means that instead of testing for: 0x100 (1 << LOCK_USED), we test for 8 (LOCK_USED), which corresponds to (1 << LOCK_ENABLED_HARDIRQ). So instead of testing for _any_ used lock, it will only match any lock used with interrupts enabled. The rcu_read_lock() annotation uses .check=0, which means it will not set any of the interrupt bits and will thus never match. In order to properly fix the situation and allow rcu_read_lock() to correctly work, split LOCK_USED into LOCK_USED and LOCK_USED_READ and by having .read users set USED_READ and test USED, pure read-recursive locks are permitted. Fixes: f6f48e18 ("lockdep: Teach lockdep about "USED" <- "IN-NMI" inversions") Signed-off-by:Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Signed-off-by:
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Tested-by:
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org> Acked-by:
Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200902160323.GK1362448@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE