+66
−36
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。
Yes, the add and remove cases do share the same basic loop and the locking, but the compiler can inline and then CSE some of the end result anyway. And splitting it up makes the code way easier to follow, and makes it clearer exactly what the semantics are. In particular, we must make sure that the FASYNC flag in file->f_flags exactly matches the state of "is this file on any fasync list", since not only is that flag visible to user space (F_GETFL), but we also use that flag to check whether we need to remove any fasync entries on file close. We got that wrong for the case of a mixed use of file locking (which tries to remove any fasync entries for file leases) and fasync. Splitting the function up also makes it possible to do some future optimizations without making the function even messier. In particular, since the FASYNC flag has to match the state of "is this on a list", we can do the following future optimizations: - on remove, we don't even need to get the locks and traverse the list if FASYNC isn't set, since we can know a priori that there is no point (this is effectively the same optimization that we already do in __fput() wrt removing fasync on file close) - on add, we can use the FASYNC flag to decide whether we are changing an existing entry or need to allocate a new one. but this is just the cleanup + fix for the FASYNC flag. Acked-by:Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Tested-by:
Tavis Ormandy <taviso@google.com> Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com> Cc: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Cc: stable@kernel.org Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE