search for: _only

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:42:13PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) 28 Jul 2014 [16:49:20], Amos Kong wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > On (Mon) 28 Jul 2014 [15:32:42], Amos Kong wrote: > > > > QEMU commandline: > > > > > > > > ./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 --enable-kvm -m 2000 -drive

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:42:13PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Mon) 28 Jul 2014 [16:49:20], Amos Kong wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > On (Mon) 28 Jul 2014 [15:32:42], Amos Kong wrote: > > > > QEMU commandline: > > > > > > > > ./x86_64-softmmu/qemu-system-x86_64 --enable-kvm -m 2000 -drive

...t's not a real issue, because the rng device can be hot-removed after dd process is killed. Hotplug issue 1: 1. boot up guest with two rng device (rng0 uses /dev/urandom, rng1 uses /dev/random) 2. read data by dd in guest 3 (option 1). hot-remove rng0, then hot-remove rng1 -> result: _only rng1_ can't be removed until dd process is killed 3 (option 2). hot-remove rng1, then hot-remove rng0 -> result: two devices can be removed successfully, dd process will exit automatically. If we use /dev/urandom for rng0 and rng1, _rng0 & rng1_ can be removed, dd process will exit...

> I also sent (off-list) a bootable floppy image to GeneC, using binaries > from Fedora 24, package version "6.03-6" (coincidentally), and a simple > syslinux.cfg, replicating the behavior. > Testing with: _ 6.03-8.fc24 : still the same unwanted behavior as 6.03-6.fc24; _ 6.04-0.1.fc25: works correctly (regarding this matter). I still think that distributions using

Hi! (I sent other mails some time ago, about not-using the Julian''s patches). When I try the configuration from Nano.txt, having the Julian''s patches applied, only the first ''hop'' of the routing table "222" is used (according to tables shown in Nano.txt). I saw that this question was asked some time ago, with no answer. Maybe someone can tell me the

...ee that local users are, well, local users. So the domain does not know anything about that users (how it could?) 2) I 100% agree that domain users are _remote_ users, that don't need to exists on the local machine. 3) What I am wondering is if, domain take aside, I can create a local user _only inside the tdbsam database_, without touching the /etc/passwd file at all. Basically, I would like to have "samba-private" users, without messing with the real Linux users. I understand that this pose a permission problems - after all, samba runs with user's credential. However, I...

Dear All, I think I have a useful idea for how shorewall startup could be speeded up in a more automatic manner. Apologies if this is daft, but I think it might work.... Motivation: not all users understand the intricacies of shoreall beyond using the distro setup tool. [And on this particular laptop, shorewall takes 15 seconds during boot.] I have already read this (about shorewall

...asily manipulate the LLVM infrastructure via ctypes as a shared object / dll -- no C required! Those of us interested in talking to LLVM from Lisps, either Common Lisp (via CFFI) or a scheme like PLT/Mzscheme, can also use the shared library interface. In fact, for the Common Lisp case, this is the _only portable_ (cross-implementation) way of talking to LLVM. If anyone's interested in Here is a one-off example of python using the shared library approach and Gordon's excellent C interface (llvm-c): http://pastebin.com/m5197c5e7 (the verbosity at the beginning is because of some lin...

...ys of debugging tough. Why so long? PassManager is quite ingeniosly crafted, making it hard to debug. Thats why there is massive CLI-Support for debugging passes (think "-debug-pass=Details"). Problem is that the debug output does not show _all_ the passes that are invalidated but some _only some_ of them. Since _some_ invalidated passes are show, I never bothered to to check if my Pass was _actually really_ preserved because it did not show up in the list of invalidated passes. Attached patch adds debug output for _all_ invalidated passes. I will commit this in the next days if the...

...s issue are not limited to the above list; the list just mentions some distributions that were somehow "involved" in the report (with no relation to package maintainers). I am aware of some additional ones that might be (or are) affected too. [1] Note: The following wiki page lists _only some_ of the building issues and workarounds (e.g. some of the issues related to gcc are not included). http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Building Regards, Ady. > _______________________________________________ > Syslinux mailing list > Submissions to Syslinux at zytor.com >...

...cal users. So the domain > does not know anything about that users (how it could?) > > 2) I 100% agree that domain users are _remote_ users, that don't need > to exists on the local machine. > > 3) What I am wondering is if, domain take aside, I can create a local > user _only inside the tdbsam database_, without touching the > /etc/passwd file at all. Basically, I would like to have > "samba-private" users, without messing with the real Linux users. I > understand that this pose a permission problems - after all, samba > runs with user's cr...

...the mirror, the live migration works great. What concerns me is finding a way if possible to prevent a situation where a particular VM is running on both hosts at once. Is there any way within libvirt in this sort of setup to start a VM on mirrored storage from a KVM host on one side of the mirror _only if_ the same VM isn't already running on the other side of the mirror? In a scripting context I can see how to do that check before starting, but not how to prevent virsh or virt-manager from being used to create this bad condition when they're being used directly. Is there some way to set...

...ging output, and the password length is fine. If I setup Win98 for encrypted passwords, the password lengths are all zero (smb_apasslen and smb_ntpasslen are both zero, and the passwords themselves are blank). So, can anyone suggest what my customer has done to cause Win98 to send blank passwords _only in encrypted mode_? I've double-checker the user's Win98 login password, and it's fine. I really would prefer to leave the passwords encrypted and fix this problem rather than switching to plaintext passwords. TIA, Lee _______________________________________________________ Sen...

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > > If I use  AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the > wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation > if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is > immediately discarded after creation.) > You need to

Hello Timo, I just tried the master user feature with a very simple setup (Dovecot v2.2.15) : !include auth-master.conf.ext -> passwd-file passdb !include auth-ldap.conf.ext -> ldap passdb (userdb prefetched) without auth_bind=yes without pass=yes I get this userdb lookup error : dovecot: auth: passwd-file(masteruser,157.99.64.42,master,<4Pgesh0OygCdY0Aq>): Master user logging in

...;something in context ", "line_number": 4, "file_path": "./spec/test_spec.rb" } ] } Note that the full_description is missing the matcher documentation. And with ci_reporter 1.8.4, this comes out as a sorry hash indeed, because _only_ the full descriptions are reported to CI. Here''s the trimmed XML output. SPEC-something.xml: <testsuite errors="0" tests="0" failures="0" name="something" skipped="0" time="0.000228"> ... </testsuite> SPEC-somethi...

If SWIG can be made to do a good job with Python/Ruby/Perl etc bindings around LLVM, I would be very interested in this. I'm personally interested in seeing both Python and Ruby bindings, and in having them be as easily maintained as possible. I think it would be interesting to see what the SWIG-style solution can do in this direction as opposed to the C-binding approach. If it results in

Hi, I've been lurking around the LLVM project for a couple of months now. The two recent threads about python bindings for LLVM ([1] and [2]), combined with the fact that I am looking for at GSoC project at the moment. Lead to the idea of making the "public" parts of LLVM SWIG[3]-friendly and basing a set of python bindings on this. My reasoning for doing it this way, is that it

...(non domain) user for other tasks. >> >> It is my understanding that for a local samba user I _need_ to create >> the relative unix user (using useradd) and then use the samba-provided >> tool smbpasswd. I simply wonder if it is possible to create local users >> using _only_ smbpasswd (or equivalent), without messing with the real >> local unix user table stored in "/etc/passwd" (hence the world "virtual) > > the smbd process is running as your user for security and permissions > as which user should it run without a unix user > root?...

...ssible with Samba and saw something about the _ldap._tcp.dc_msdcs record. added that (_tcp._ldap.dc._msdcs.ifs. SRV 0 0 0 .) to my config, but still no succes (thought that wouldn't do much anyway, since the link says it's only to reduce unneccessary traffic). Samba show's _only changes in nmbd-logfile_: <snip> [2003/08/25 14:30:00, 4] nmbd/nmbd_workgroupdb.c:find_workgroup_on_subnet(156) find_workgroup_on_subnet: workgroup search for IFS on subnet 10.21.32.1: found. [2003/08/25 14:30:00, 4] nmbd/nmbd_workgroupdb.c:find_workgroup_on_subnet(156) find_workgr...