search for: bying

Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> writes: >> For example, say github's llvm-mirror was a contributor's fork. The review >> process might look like this: >> >> Contributor: >> Please review my patch: >> https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/commit/4823be3be1d87632fbd51ce8e51a58ee5e44b115 >> >> Maintainer: >> Adds inline

Hi list, I have bought some Cisco 7941G-GE IP phones and want to use them with asterisk. Before bying I tested the whole setup with three different models of the old 79X0 series (a 7912, 7940 and a 7960). Flashing the formerly provided SCCP-Image to SIP was no problem, but now it complains about a nonexistent CTLSEP<mac>.tlv file. Most of the howtos say something about an empty file but that...

>> Most development is not "some contributor's fork". > > Well, in the git model every developer has a fork. > >> What you suggest works great for the occasional drive-by >> contributors, but most development is not from drive-by's. > > Not sure what you mean by "drive-by" but in git this is really > irrelevant, I think. Sorry for

Good day all We got a Wildcard TE110P I installed linux,zaptel,libpti and asterisk I coped over my zaptel.conf and zapata.conf from a previous E100P config But when I try to start asterisk it gives error not bying able to load zap channles: == Parsing '/etc/asterisk/zapata.conf': Found Jan 10 08:17:18 WARNING[-1084595552]: chan_zap.c:9308 setup_zap: Ignoring switchtype Jan 10 08:17:18 ERROR[-1084595552]: chan_zap.c:9131 setup_zap: Unknown signalling method 'pri_cpe' Jan 10 08:17:18 ERROR[-1...

On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:25:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > And I've demonstrated that I can't send patch series.. While this > has all the right patches, it also has the extra patches already > in the hmm tree, and four extra patches I wanted to send once > this series is merged. I'll give up for now, please use the git > url for anything serious, as it

> For example, say github's llvm-mirror was a contributor's fork. The review > process might look like this: > > Contributor: > Please review my patch: > https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/commit/4823be3be1d87632fbd51ce8e51a58ee5e44b115 > > Maintainer: > Adds inline comments with online tool. Then when patch is looking good: > $ git fetch

Hi everybody, I've got an Unitek iZi UPS 525 with a serial interface. The supplied cable looks fairly simple: RX->RX , TX->TX and GND->GND. Using this cable and Minicom with 2400 8N1 I'm able to issue commands to the UPS using the "Megatec Protocol" http://www.networkupstools.org/protocols/megatec.html so I know the UPS is fairly "intelligent" :-) and the

...9;m a biologist, so stats are a tool for my research not the end itself. During this time I've enjoyed working with R but the graphical part of it drives me crazy and the small possibilities in terms of reading some file formats also causes me problems. Two weeks ago I've had the chance of bying a license for Splus 5 for linux. After some trouble with their representant because of a stupid license scheme I've managed to install and work with it. The things I needed are know working: I can access different files formats (at lest they say so) and the graphs are better. On the other way t...

Device exclusive page table entries are used to prevent CPU access to a page whilst it is being accessed from a device. Typically this is used to implement atomic operations when the underlying bus does not support atomic access. When a CPU thread encounters a device exclusive entry it locks the page and restores the original entry after calling mmu notifiers to signal drivers that exclusive

I did a very quick pass at removing all the non-KMS support from the DDX. It's tested on G80 but nowhere else currently, I thought some discussion would be a good idea rather than just ripping it out :) The non-KMS paths are messy, and lets face it, rotting badly. IMO the KMS code is stable enough now that we can continue without the UMS crutch, and indeed, the KMS code supports a lot more

> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:25:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > And I've demonstrated that I can't send patch series.. While this has > > all the right patches, it also has the extra patches already in the > > hmm tree, and four extra patches I wanted to send once this series is > > merged. I'll give up for now, please use the git url for

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:42 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 10:25:17AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > And I've demonstrated that I can't send patch series.. While this > > has all the right patches, it also has the extra patches already > > in the hmm tree, and four extra patches I wanted to send once >

hi All, Sorry to repost but................ I have a server setup that runs sip no problem. I want to try a cisco phone. how do I a) Tell if I have skinny support loaded b) Load it onto a debian system Many thanks

Okidokey Heres the story We currently have an NT4 Domain with 50+ machines connected to it, we have one NT4 PDC and two NT4 BDC's. We Currently have three redhat 7.3 servers that offer up our file shares using Samba 2.2.x As opposed to "upgrading" to windows 2000 we want to see if we can migrate across to a Samba controlled domain. Now then I currently have a test machine that is

The INIT_COMPUTE_MEM opcode was one of the missing pieces for pre-nv40 card cold-booting (i.e. multicard), it's supposed to detect the right setting for several of the memory config variables a given GPU supports (memory type, bus width, amount of installed RAM chips). The implementation I'm attaching seems to work on all the cards I've got at hand, but I've done a few unproven

Thanks for answers,but as I see libvirt call ovs-vsctl that tries to connect to ovs-vswitchd socket,that have rw to root.how can I specify socket permissions in vswitchd? On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:05:15PM +0400, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote: > Hello! How can i operate with openvswitch without root rights? > For example - i can add my user to kvm group and create vm from > libvirt with my own

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> > >>>>We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio > >>>>changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should > >>>>it go (2), (1),

On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 08:49:31AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/03/2011 08:45 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > >On 11/03/2011 03:38 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >>> > >>>>We could use a better agreement on the processor for making virtio > >>>>changes. Should it go (1) virtio spec (2) kernel (3) qemu, or should > >>>>it go (2), (1),

I've been working on a patchset to change how the inode->i_ctime is accessed in order to give us conditional, high-res timestamps for the ctime and mtime. struct timespec64 has unused bits in it that we can use to implement this. In order to do that however, we need to wrap all accesses of inode->i_ctime to ensure that bits used as flags are appropriately handled. This patchset first

Hi Michael, > As for actually switching to git. I see no benefit to justify the cost > of switching unless we actually take advantage of git's features. And > I've yet to see anyone propose this. Then I'll be the first. :) The benefit is that the review process would require no file copies or email attachments, shorter email conversations, no copying code during reviews to