search for: _and_

Hi group, I have installed a postfix as an MTA and configured two "main" domains as well as two virtual mailbox domains. Normal unix users have their maildir in their homes (/home/%u) and the virtual mailboxes are located in /var/mail/vhosts. It works well, I only have a problem configuring dovecot. I wondered if it's possible to configure it in a way that both, unix users and

I am trying to get a Samba PDC and a Samba member server to work together. I can't. The documentation describes how to make a Samba PDC work. I got that working. My Win2k desktop can join just fine. The documentation describes how to make a Samba server be a member of an NT domain. It does not tell how to make Samba trust Samba. That's my problem. I have the PDC setup to

Having been accomodating about it in the past, the technical geniuses at Comcast have permanently blocked port 25, separating me (at my home office) from my employer's e-mail server. What can be done on the server side to keep Postfix listening on 25 _and_ accept my connections on some other port? Is there a Postfix solution? iptables maybe? Miark

On 11/25/2016 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:10:04PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:21:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>> What are use cases for such primitive that won't be OK with "read once >>> _and_ atomically"? >> >> I have none to hand. > > Whatever triggers the __builtin_memcpy() paths, and even the size==8 > paths on 32bit. > > You could put a WARN in there to easily find them. There were several cases that I found during writing the *ONCE stuff. For exam...

On 11/25/2016 05:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:10:04PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 04:21:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > >>> What are use cases for such primitive that won't be OK with "read once >>> _and_ atomically"? >> >> I have none to hand. > > Whatever triggers the __builtin_memcpy() paths, and even the size==8 > paths on 32bit. > > You could put a WARN in there to easily find them. There were several cases that I found during writing the *ONCE stuff. For exam...

...Linux-Guest Sidux). And I'd like to use NFS. Furthermore I'd like to use the Firewall in CentOS with this little GUI. If I activate this firewall then my Guest says "no route to host" on mounting nfs. Firewall disabled -> no problem occurs. Is there a solution to use firewall _and_ nfs ? Please, no iptables scripts. I'd like to use this small GUI for the firewall. Thx Timothy

Hello, with CentOS 6.2 - is it possible to configure OpenSSH daemon to listen on different IPs _and_ ports? I have received a 2nd IP address for my server and have successfully configured by adding the new "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:1" file. I'd like SSHd to keep listening at the_old_ip:22 but also at the_new_ip:443. The 443 on the_old_ip is already taken by Apache...

...ave to spell all of its guarantees). Most of the uses of READ/WRITE_ONCE will be broken if they are not atomic. "Read once but not necessary atomically" is a very subtle primitive which is very easy to misuse. What are use cases for such primitive that won't be OK with "read once _and_ atomically"? Copy to/from user is obviously one such case, but it is already handled specially.

...ave to spell all of its guarantees). Most of the uses of READ/WRITE_ONCE will be broken if they are not atomic. "Read once but not necessary atomically" is a very subtle primitive which is very easy to misuse. What are use cases for such primitive that won't be OK with "read once _and_ atomically"? Copy to/from user is obviously one such case, but it is already handled specially.

...point of the *_ONCE() accessors... > "Read once but not necessary atomically" is a very subtle primitive > which is very easy to misuse. I agree. Unfortunately, Linus does not appear to [2]. > What are use cases for such primitive that won't be OK with "read once > _and_ atomically"? I have none to hand. Thanks, Mark. [1] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02674.html [2] http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1503.3/02670.html

...set by the constant dismissal of the ideas and solutions that i come up with. those solutions come from a far-sighted understanding of what is involved, and what can be achieved. i never intend to just "solve the problem at hand", i intend to think ahead of what can be achieved both now _and_ in the future. to that end, the constant dismissal of my development approach, the constant dismissal of coding solutions, the constant dismissal of designs, is just too much. if anyone can think of a solution to this, please let me know. in the mean-time, i shall find other projects to work on....

Hi All, I noticed a very weird phenomenon when I'm copying data (200KB image files) to our glusterfs storage. When I run only run client, it copies roughly 20 files per second and as soon as I start a second client on another machine, the copy rate of the first client immediately degrade to 5 files per second. When I stop the second client, the first client will immediately speed up

...themselves. >> > The problem is that then we have 2 problems: All targets (except for > arm64) then have to lower the intrinsic as the first thing they do > (giving us a TTI pass as the first thing in the pipeline) to take > advantage of the information later during optimization, _and_ we have > to plumb all of the work optimizing the intrinsic as well giving us a > situation where we've now split our optimization efforts as well as > the pain of maintaining an intrinsic that's useful for a single > target. > > I really think that this is just solidifyin...

...: # func(data="eg", A="< 0", B="< 1", C="> 0") # Which would also need to be run as # func(data="eg", A="> 1", B="> 0", C=NA) #end Noteably: -the signs* "<" and ">" need to be flexible _and_ optional -the quantities also need to be flexible -column header names i.e, A, B and C don't need flexibility, i.e., can remain fixed * "less than" and "greater than" so google picks up this thread Once again i find just how limited my grasp of R is...Is do.call() the best...

26470:acaf29203cf9 "tools+stubdom: install under /usr/local by default" moved more stuff under /usr/local than was desirable. In particular SYSCONFIG_DIR (configuration for initscripts) moved to /usr/local/etc/{sysconfig,defaults} while the initscripts themselves (correctly) remained in /etc/init.d. Moving /etc/xen/scripts breaks the udev bakcned rules file. Lastly stuff under /var was

A few of you sounded interested in using it. I haven''t explicitly put a software license on it, so I guess it''s not technically FOSS yet. What licenses are good? BSD? Public Domain? ? Jenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/camping-list/attachments/20120502/96b87580/attachment.html>

I have a general style question about R coding. Suppose I'm writing a function (foo1) that calls other functions (foo2, foo3, ...) which have complicated argument lists (e.g. optim(), plot()), _and_ I may be calling several different functions in the body of foo1. Since foo2 and foo3 have different sets of arguments, I can't just use "..." ; I did write some code a while ago that would look at formals() to dissect out arguments that should be passed to the different functions, b...

...n Harris wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2016 at 09:19:43PM -0500, Bruce F Bading wrote: > > One, the Google Authenticator (OTP authentication). > > On its own, this is not 2FA. It's single factor ("something you > have"). > > A combination of Google Authenticator _and_ password is 2FA. This is > easy to do with PAM. Agreed > > Two, Public/Private key authentication (pubkeyauthentication = yes) which > > supports pass phrase private key authentication. > > This is 2FA in that you need the private key and the passphrase for it. I don't...

...ype. >> >> The hypervisor paravirt spinlock code will override this new parameter >> in determining if pvqspinlock should be used. The parameter, however, >> will override Xen's xen_nopvspin in term of disabling unfair lock. > Hmm, I'm not sure we need pvlock_type _and_ xen_nopvspin. What do others > think? I don't think we need xen_nopvspin, but I don't want to remove that without agreement from the community. >> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(virt_spin_lock_key); >> >> void __init native_pv_lock_init(void) >> { >> - if (!st...

...ype. >> >> The hypervisor paravirt spinlock code will override this new parameter >> in determining if pvqspinlock should be used. The parameter, however, >> will override Xen's xen_nopvspin in term of disabling unfair lock. > Hmm, I'm not sure we need pvlock_type _and_ xen_nopvspin. What do others > think? I don't think we need xen_nopvspin, but I don't want to remove that without agreement from the community. >> DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(virt_spin_lock_key); >> >> void __init native_pv_lock_init(void) >> { >> - if (!st...