+24
−11
+1
−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。
As reported by Guenter Roeck, the new bit-locking using BIT(1) doesn't work on the m68k architecture. m68k only requires 2-byte alignment for words and longwords, so there is only one unused bit in pointers to structs - We current use two, one for the NULLS marker at the end of the linked list, and one for the bit-lock in the head of the list. The two uses don't need to conflict as we never need the head of the list to be a NULLS marker - the marker is only needed to check if an object has moved to a different table, and the bucket head cannot move. The NULLS marker is only needed in a ->next pointer. As we already have different types for the bucket head pointer (struct rhash_lock_head) and the ->next pointers (struct rhash_head), it is fairly easy to treat the lsb differently in each. So: Initialize buckets heads to NULL, and use the lsb for locking. When loading the pointer from the bucket head, if it is NULL (ignoring the lock big), report as being the expected NULLS marker. When storing a value into a bucket head, if it is a NULLS marker, store NULL instead. And convert all places that used bit 1 for locking, to use bit 0. Fixes: 8f0db018 ("rhashtable: use bit_spin_locks to protect hash bucket.") Reported-by:Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Tested-by:
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> Signed-off-by:
NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> Signed-off-by:
David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE