Displaying 18 results from an estimated 18 matches for "inialize".
Did you mean:
initalize
2017 Aug 31
1
Can not inialize SSL connection
...password for NSS
User Private Key and Certificate Services / NSS Certificate DB: password
configured
Aug 31 22:00:29 pve upsd[20522]: Intend to retrieve password for NSS
User Private Key and Certificate Services / NSS Certificate DB: password
configured
Aug 31 22:00:29 pve upsd[20522]: Can not inialize SSL connection
Aug 31 22:00:34 pve upsd[20522]: Intend to retrieve password for NSS
User Private Key and Certificate Services / NSS Certificate DB: password
configured
Aug 31 22:00:34 pve upsd[20522]: Intend to retrieve password for NSS
User Private Key and Certificate Services / NSS Certificate...
2005 Mar 10
1
how to view the syntax of a method which is not a generic method
...am
following homework problem 4, Chapter 5, page 268 of Pinheiro and Bates
book on mixed effect.
I'm up to point where I've created a new class using an existing
variance function class, varExp as a template. Next I need to write an
initialize method. The book suggests that I use the inialize method for
one of the exisiting variance functions for lme(), eg varExp.
What I want is the syntax of the initialize.varExp method so that I can
edit it to create an initialize method for my newly constructed class.
So - I tried to get the text of this method, called initialize.varExp by
using...
2007 Sep 27
2
Q: how to restrict access selectively to client initiated local port forward
Hello,
At work we have an internal application that implements a proxy. It
works by counting the number of connections per IP address and using
this to enforce usage limits (i.e. not more than X connections from a
given IP).
The important thing for us is a unique IP per client. We have this
implemented where each client first authenticates through OpenVPN and is
assigned a unique IP
2015 Sep 26
9
Supporting 32 bit data
Hi all,
I just noticed this:
https://sourceforge.net/p/flac/feature-requests/91/
a request for support of 32 bit audio data. The request has been around
since 2008.
Had two inial impressions:
* Would adding this break brackwards compatibility too badly? Obviously
decoding of 32 bit encoded data would not work with older versions of
flac.
* This is nuts. 24 bits has a dynamic range of
2015 Jul 08
2
CUDA fixed VA allocations and sparse mappings
...rspace, then tell the driver about
that range and have the driver initialize the GPU and use that chunk
for kernel private structure allocation.
Issue is that it is kind of a API violation for nouveau kernel driver.
Thought i am not familiar enough, maybe you can do ioctl to nouveau
before nouveau inialize and allocate the kernel private buffer (gr and
other stuff). If so then problem solve i guess. Process that want to
use CUDA will need to do the mmap dance and early ioctl.
Hope this helps, cheers
Jérôme
2015 Sep 26
0
Supporting 32 bit data
Op 26-09-15 om 09:22 schreef Erik de Castro Lopo:
> Had two inial impressions:
>
> * Would adding this break brackwards compatibility too badly? Obviously
> decoding of 32 bit encoded data would not work with older versions of
> flac.
Probably not. I know that Josh at some point added a second
residual coding method (rice2) to support 24-bit, but that only
broke backward
2007 Aug 08
19
Introducing paravirt_ops for x86_64
Hi folks,
After some time away from it, and a big rebase as a consequence, here is
the updated version of paravirt_ops for x86_64, heading to inclusion.
Your criticism is of course, very welcome.
Have fun
--
arch/x86_64/Kconfig | 11
arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.c | 2
arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile | 1
arch/x86_64/kernel/apic.c | 2
2007 Aug 08
19
Introducing paravirt_ops for x86_64
Hi folks,
After some time away from it, and a big rebase as a consequence, here is
the updated version of paravirt_ops for x86_64, heading to inclusion.
Your criticism is of course, very welcome.
Have fun
--
arch/x86_64/Kconfig | 11
arch/x86_64/ia32/syscall32.c | 2
arch/x86_64/kernel/Makefile | 1
arch/x86_64/kernel/apic.c | 2
2007 Dec 12
5
[PATCH 0/6] paravirt patches - the non-integration part
Hi,
This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series
that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general,
they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the
unification a big problem on its own).
They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for
inclusion, unless someone opposes.
As with the other patches, they apply to
2007 Dec 12
5
[PATCH 0/6] paravirt patches - the non-integration part
Hi,
This series corresponds do older patches in the paravirt series
that was neither already applied, nor I will touch again. In general,
they do not touch code that can be unified (at least, without being the
unification a big problem on its own).
They passed through this list a lot of times, so I feel them ready for
inclusion, unless someone opposes.
As with the other patches, they apply to
2015 Jul 08
2
CUDA fixed VA allocations and sparse mappings
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:37:34AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> On 8 July 2015 at 10:31, Andrew Chew <achew at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 10:18:36AM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote:
> >> > There's some minimal state that needs to be mapped into GPU address space.
> >> > One thing that comes to mind are pushbuffers, which are needed to submit
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Aug 10
9
[PATCH 0/25 -v2] paravirt_ops for x86_64, second round
Here is an slightly updated version of the paravirt_ops patch.
If your comments and criticism were welcome before, now it's even more!
There are some issues that are _not_ addressed in this revision, and here
are the causes:
* split debugreg into multiple functions, suggested by Andi:
- Me and jsfg agree that introducing more pvops (specially 14!) is
not worthwhile. So, although we do
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Nov 09
11
[PATCH 0/24] paravirt_ops for unified x86 - that's me again!
Hey folks,
Here's a new spin of the pvops64 patch series.
We didn't get that many comments from the last time,
so it should be probably almost ready to get in. Heya!
>From the last version, the most notable changes are:
* consolidation of system.h, merging jeremy's comments about ordering
concerns
* consolidation of smp functions that goes through smp_ops. They're sharing
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it
2007 Aug 15
13
[PATCH 0/25][V3] pvops_64 last round (hopefully)
This is hopefully the last iteration of the pvops64 patch.
>From the last version, we have only one change, which is include/asm-x86_64/processor.h: There were still one survivor in raw asm.
Also, git screwed me up for some reason, and the 25th patch was missing the new files, paravirt.{c,h}. (although I do remember having git-add'ed it, but who knows...)
Andrew, could you please push it
2008 Nov 23
14
CDR Design
I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread to discuss the design
of the Asterisk CDR mechanism. The discussion has been kindly
initiated by murf putting together a proposal:
http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/murf/RFCs.
After reading the proposal I still don't think it's the right way to
go. To my mind adding more channel variables increases the complexity
in a situation