search for: 2040

...nd me the details. Thanks in advance, Gus The logs: *CLI> Version Request Received CapabilitiesRes Buttontemplate requested Recieved SoftKey Template Request Received SoftKeySetReq Received LineStateReq Received Time/Date Request -- Executing Dial("SIP/2050-e4c0", "Skinny/2040@172.16.254.62") in new stack Found device: 172.16.254.62 -- skinny_request(2040@172.16.254.62) -- Skinny cw: 0, dnd: 0, so: 0, sno: 0 -- skinny_call(Skinny/2040@172.16.254.62-2) -- Called 2040@172.16.254.62 -- Skinny/2040@172.16.254.62-2 is ringing Recieved Open Recieve Cha...

...> 1100 3793 2013 1926 > 4 2013 2024 1934 > 1094 3769 2024 1918 > 632 2747 2037 1928 > 176 2083 2039 1944 > 187 2085 2039 1949 > 192 2086 2039 NA > 495 2556 2039 1940 > 71 2050 2040 1950 > 343 2158 2040 1926 > 930 3045 2040 1948 > > I have then extracted the lowest birth.year for each SibID using: > > br<-tapply(warmerge$birth.year,warmerge$SibID,which.min) > > br[1:5] > $`2013` > [1] 1 > > $`2024` > [1] 2 &...

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2040 Priority: P5 Bug ID: 2040 Assignee: unassigned-bugs at mindrot.org Summary: Downgrade attack vulnerability when checking SSHFP records Severity: minor Classification: Unclassified OS: All Reporte...

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2020:2040 Important Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:2040 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: e4deb973049f1956a80841b145c3487576d06bdfed5cc68b439f4c515fa5500b squid-3.5.20-15.el7_8.1.x86_...

..._bit(&xb1, bit); assert(xb_empty(&xb1)); - assert(xb_clear_bit(&xb1, bit) == 0); + xb_clear_bit(&xb1, bit); assert(xb_empty(&xb1)); xb_preload_end(); } static void xbitmap_check_bit_range(void) { + unsigned long nbit; + /* * Regular tests * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040 @@ -273,14 +275,23 @@ static void xbitmap_check_bit_range(void) assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2000)); assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2001)); assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1, 2040)); - assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, 2048, 0) == 2000); - assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, 2002, 2000) == 2000); - assert(xb_fin...

...bout the four memory allocations without a stacktrace I think the four memory allocations without a stacktrace reported by Rprofmem(): > Rprofmem(); x <- raw(2000); Rprofmem("") > cat(readLines("Rprofmem.out", n=5, warn=FALSE), sep="\n") 192 :360 :360 :1064 :2040 :"raw" are due to some initialization of R that is independent of Rprofmem(), because they can be avoided if one allocates some memory before (in a fresh R session): > z <- raw(1000); dummy <- gc() > Rprofmem(); x <- raw(2000); Rprofmem("") > cat(readLines(&q...

...IC_KEY_FALSE' include/net/sock.h:2439: warning: Excess function parameter 'sk' description in 'DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE' include/net/sock.h:2439: warning: Excess function parameter 'skb' description in 'DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE' include/linux/netdevice.h:2040: warning: Function parameter or member 'gso_partial_features' not described in 'net_device' include/linux/netdevice.h:2040: warning: Function parameter or member 'l3mdev_ops' not described in 'net_device' include/linux/netdevice.h:2040: warning: Function parame...

Dear R-users, I have a complex line by xy-values (ordered by z). And I would like to get interpolated y-values on the positions of x = 0:600. How do I get the correct points? x=c(790,790,790,790,790,786,783,778,778,766,763,761,761,761,715,628,521,350,160,134,134,129,108,101,93,111,161,249,288,243,139,45,7)

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:34:36PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > On 12/19/2017 10:05 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > I think xb_find_set() has a bug in !node path. > > > > I think we can probably remove the "!node" path for now. It would be > > good to get the fundamental part in first, and

On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 8:26 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 06:34:36PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > On 12/19/2017 10:05 PM, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > I think xb_find_set() has a bug in !node path. > > > > I think we can probably remove the "!node" path for now. It would be > > good to get the fundamental part in first, and

...>> I can't understand this. I can understand if it were >>> >>> BUG_ON(!bitmap); >>> >>> because you called xb_preload(). >>> >>> But >>> >>> /* >>> * Regular test 2 >>> * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040 >>> * Next 1 in [0, 2048) --> 2000 >>> * Next 1 in [2000, 2002) --> 2000 >>> * Next 1 in [2002, 2041) --> 2040 >>> * Next 1 in [2002, 2040) --> none >>> * Next 0 in [2000, 2048) --> 2002 >>> * Next 0 in [2048, 2060) -...

...ida_bitmap, NULL); > > + if (!bitmap) > > + return -ENOMEM; > > I can't understand this. I can understand if it were > > BUG_ON(!bitmap); > > because you called xb_preload(). > > But > > /* > * Regular test 2 > * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040 > * Next 1 in [0, 2048) --> 2000 > * Next 1 in [2000, 2002) --> 2000 > * Next 1 in [2002, 2041) --> 2040 > * Next 1 in [2002, 2040) --> none > * Next 0 in [2000, 2048) --> 2002 > * Next 0 in [2048, 2060) --> 2048 > */ > xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL...

Have you noticed any problems with big dates (>=1/1/2040) in R? Here is the bit of code that I'm having trouble with: > test.date <- strptime("1/1/2040",format="%m/%d/%Y") > > unlist(test.date) sec min hour mday mon year wday yday isdst 0 0 0 1 0 140 0 0 0 > > da...

...node = NULL */ + xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + xb_set_bit(&xb1, 700); + xb_preload_end(); + assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, ULONG_MAX, 0) == 700); + assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, ULONG_MAX, 800) == ULONG_MAX); + xb_clear_bit_range(&xb1, 0, 1024); + + /* + * Regular test 2 + * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040 + * Next 1 in [0, 2048) --> 2000 + * Next 1 in [2000, 2002) --> 2000 + * Next 1 in [2002, 2041) --> 2040 + * Next 1 in [2002, 2040) --> none + * Next 0 in [2000, 2048) --> 2002 + * Next 0 in [2048, 2060) --> 2048 + */ + xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1...

...node = NULL */ + xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + xb_set_bit(&xb1, 700); + xb_preload_end(); + assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, ULONG_MAX, 0) == 700); + assert(xb_find_set(&xb1, ULONG_MAX, 800) == ULONG_MAX); + xb_clear_bit_range(&xb1, 0, 1024); + + /* + * Regular test 2 + * set bit 2000, 2001, 2040 + * Next 1 in [0, 2048) --> 2000 + * Next 1 in [2000, 2002) --> 2000 + * Next 1 in [2002, 2041) --> 2040 + * Next 1 in [2002, 2040) --> none + * Next 0 in [2000, 2048) --> 2002 + * Next 0 in [2048, 2060) --> 2048 + */ + xb_preload(GFP_KERNEL); + assert(!xb_set_bit(&xb1...

On 12/22/2017 05:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > OK, here's a rewrite of xbitmap. > > Compared to the version you sent: > - xb_find_set() is the rewrite I sent out yesterday. > - xb_find_clear() is a new implementation. I use the IDR_FREE tag to find > clear bits. This led to me finding a bug in radix_tree_for_each_tagged(). > - xb_zero() is also a new

On 12/22/2017 05:03 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > OK, here's a rewrite of xbitmap. > > Compared to the version you sent: > - xb_find_set() is the rewrite I sent out yesterday. > - xb_find_clear() is a new implementation. I use the IDR_FREE tag to find > clear bits. This led to me finding a bug in radix_tree_for_each_tagged(). > - xb_zero() is also a new

...T the maximum permissions that can be set for a file or folder created by Windows or a Windows application. The file or folder should never be group writable, or even accessible by "others". In addition, I have also played with specifying the following options: force directory mode = 2040 force create mode = 2040 Until this new version of the Windows application came out, I never had any issues. ANY folder or file created by the application always had the same permissions: 2750 or 570 (respectively) But NOW The Windows application seems to be completely getting around the limi...

...ter(BDT),'%d-%b-%y') [1] "2022-07-14" "2022-07-14" "2022-07-14" "2022-07-14" "2021-03-23" "2021-03-23" "2021-03-23" "2027-08-27" "2027-08-27" [10] "2027-08-27" "2027-08-27" "2040-04-05" "2040-04-05" "2040-04-05" "2040-04-05" "2023-12-15" "2023-12-15" "2023-12-15" [19] "2023-12-15" "2017-08-19" "2017-08-19" "2017-08-19" "2017-08-19" "2017-08-31" &quot...

...rfect. Our issue is that it doesn?t work so well with our CRM. Although the TAPI line initialization is successful, AstTAPI doesn?t report the Phone Number and TAPI doesn?t know about our extension. Anybody knows how to solve this? Ours log: 2005/08/02 15:42:32:476 Information 0x50002 in Process 2040 Thread 1784 Location: CPHRequestManager::LineOpenWrapper Module: phreqmgr.cpp Line: 2385 The SAPphone server got a valid phone line. Parameters are: Line ID: 2 Line Name: Asterisk Line Handle: 66304 Number of Addresses: 1 Priviledges: 0x00000002 Media modes: 0x00000004 ----------------------------...