Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "01d3".
Did you mean:
0163
2004 Jul 24
0
ext[23]_rename do not update [cm]time of target directory
...f the parent directory of each file.
ext[23]_rename fail to update st_[cm]time of the target directory if the
target file already existed.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab at suse.de
SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstra?e 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
2009 Jan 24
5
[LLVMdev] inline asm semantics: output constraint width smaller than input
On 2009-01-23 20:27, Török Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> i'd not mind it at all if the kernel could be built with other open-source
>> compilers too.
>>
>> Now in this case the patch you suggest might end up hurting the end result
>> so it's not an unconditional 'yes'. But ... how much it actually matters
>> depends on
2018 Apr 17
0
slow smbclient samba 4.7.x
...ist: ARRAY(1)
ctx_list: struct dcerpc_ctx_list
context_id : 0x0000 (0)
num_transfer_syntaxes : 0x01 (1)
abstract_syntax: struct ndr_syntax_id
uuid : 4b324fc8-1670-01d3-1278-5a47bf6ee188
if_version : 0x00000003 (3)
transfer_syntaxes: ARRAY(1)
transfer_syntaxes: struct ndr_syntax_id
uuid : 8a885d04-1ceb-11c9-9fe8-08002b104860...
2005 Aug 12
0
Trouble with usrmgr.exe in 3.0.20rc1/2
...syntaxes: 01
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint32(669)
0010 data : 4b324fc8
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint16(640)
0014 data : 1670
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint16(640)
0016 data : 01d3
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint8s(756)
0018 data : 12 78
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint8s(756)
001a data : 5a 47 bf 6e e1 88
[2005/07/01 02:39:16, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_uint32(669)
0020 version: 0000...
2012 Apr 20
44
Ceph on btrfs 3.4rc
After running ceph on XFS for some time, I decided to try btrfs again.
Performance with the current "for-linux-min" branch and big metadata
is much better. The only problem (?) I''m still seeing is a warning
that seems to occur from time to time:
[87703.784552] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[87703.789759] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2103
2012 Nov 05
7
VFS ACL with SMB2
Hello,
I have a question because POSIX ACL with SMB2 max protocol does not work
properly.Did you test VFS xattr acls with SMB2 max protocol? Is it
working corectly?
Best regards/Adrian Berlin
--