+1
−9
+0
−6
+7
−49
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。
Commit f0bab73c ("locking/lockdep: Restrict the use of recursive read_lock() with qrwlock") changed lockdep to try and conform to the qrwlock semantics which differ from the traditional rwlock semantics. In particular qrwlock is fair outside of interrupt context, but in interrupt context readers will ignore all fairness. The problem modeling this is that read and write side have different lock state (interrupts) semantics but we only have a single representation of these. Therefore lockdep will get confused, thinking the lock can cause interrupt lock inversions. So revert it for now; the old rwlock semantics were already imperfectly modeled and the qrwlock extra won't fit either. If we want to properly fix this, I think we need to resurrect the work by Gautham did a few years ago that split the read and write state of locks: http://lwn.net/Articles/332801/ FWIW the locking selftest that would've failed (and was reported by Borislav earlier) is something like: RL(X1); /* IRQ-ON */ LOCK(A); UNLOCK(A); RU(X1); IRQ_ENTER(); RL(X1); /* IN-IRQ */ RU(X1); IRQ_EXIT(); At which point it would report that because A is an IRQ-unsafe lock we can suffer the following inversion: CPU0 CPU1 lock(A) lock(X1) lock(A) <IRQ> lock(X1) And this is 'wrong' because X1 can recurse (assuming the above lock are in fact read-lock) but lockdep doesn't know about this. Signed-off-by:Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com> Cc: ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: bp@alien8.de Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140930132600.GA7444@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by:
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE