+14
−9
+34
−24
+4
−1
+51
−23
+2
−1
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。
Pekka Enberg pointed out that double error handlings found after nilfs_transaction_end() can be avoided by separating abort operation: OK, I don't understand this. The only way nilfs_transaction_end() can fail is if we have NILFS_TI_SYNC set and we fail to construct the segment. But why do we want to construct a segment if we don't commit? I guess what I'm asking is why don't we have a separate nilfs_transaction_abort() function that can't fail for the erroneous case to avoid this double error value tracking thing? This does the separation and renames nilfs_transaction_end() to nilfs_transaction_commit() for clarification. Since, some calls of these functions were used just for exclusion control against the segment constructor, they are replaced with semaphore operations. Acked-by:Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> Signed-off-by:
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp> Signed-off-by:
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE