search for: major

...- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/builder/templates/make-template.ml b/builder/templates/make-template.ml index 8d26177bf..a4e2f37fb 100755 --- a/builder/templates/make-template.ml +++ b/builder/templates/make-template.ml @@ -1238,7 +1238,8 @@ and make_rhel_yum_conf major minor arch = major major minor in sprintf "%s/Server/%s/os" topurl arch, sprintf "%s/source/SRPMS" topurl, - Some (sprintf "%s/Server/optional/%s/os" arch topurl, + Some ("Optional", + spri...

...f --git a/src/guestfs-internal.h b/src/guestfs-internal.h index 6b3cfdf..0b207b2 100644 --- a/src/guestfs-internal.h +++ b/src/guestfs-internal.h @@ -605,8 +605,7 @@ struct inspect_fs { enum inspect_os_package_management package_management; char *product_name; char *product_variant; - int major_version; - int minor_version; + struct version version; char *arch; char *hostname; char *windows_systemroot; @@ -933,7 +932,12 @@ extern void guestfs_int_waitpid_noerror (pid_t pid); /* version.c */ extern void guestfs_int_version_from_libvirt (struct version *v, int vernum); extern...

...>>> such, a simple and predictable version number makes sense. > >>> b) The LLVM project as a whole is a lot bigger than LLVM IR, even > >>> given its centrality to the project in some ways. > >>> c) I think that it makes sense to keep adding 0.1 to each major > >>> release going forward well into the future. > > > > > > Now you’re making the versions sound like floating point numbers :-). > Just to be clear, you are proposing we use 3.10/3.11/etc. rather than > 4.0/4.1/etc.? > > No, I’m suggesting that we contin...

> On Jun 19, 2016, at 4:25 AM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: <snip> > >>>> Given that our releases are time-based rather than feature-based, >>>> I >>>> don't see a distinct major / minor version being anything other >>>> than >>>> arbitrary, so I'd suggest we take 4.0 as our next release, 4.1 as >>>> the first patch release on that, 5.0 as the next release after >>>> that, >>>> and so on. >>> >>...

Rusty, currently virtio_blk uses one major number per device. While this works quite well on most systems it is wasteful and will exhaust major numbers on larger installations. This patch allocates a major number on init and will use 16 minor numbers for each disk. That will allow ~64k virtio_blk disks. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraege...

Rusty, currently virtio_blk uses one major number per device. While this works quite well on most systems it is wasteful and will exhaust major numbers on larger installations. This patch allocates a major number on init and will use 16 minor numbers for each disk. That will allow ~64k virtio_blk disks. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraege...

...xml.ml @@ -34,8 +34,102 @@ let find_target_disk targets { s_disk_id = id } = try List.find (fun t -> t.target_overlay.ov_source.s_disk_id = id) targets with Not_found -> assert false +let get_osinfo_id = function + | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "rhel"; + i_major_version = major; i_minor_version = minor } -> + Some (sprintf "http://redhat.com/rhel/%d.%d" major minor) + + | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "centos"; + i_major_version = major; i_minor_version = minor } when major < 7 -> + Some (sprintf "ht...

...ate_libvirt_xml.ml | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/v2v/create_libvirt_xml.ml b/v2v/create_libvirt_xml.ml index dbc24315..002ce2b8 100644 --- a/v2v/create_libvirt_xml.ml +++ b/v2v/create_libvirt_xml.ml @@ -43,9 +43,14 @@ let get_osinfo_id = function i_major_version = major; i_minor_version = minor } when major < 7 -> Some (sprintf "http://centos.org/centos/%d.%d" major minor) - | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "centos"; i_major_version = major } -> + | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "cento...

...moves common code to that, so it is not repeated in many places. This should help with the small refactoring proposed with https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2016-May/msg00070.html Thanks, Pino Toscano (2): src: start unifying version handling inspect: switch to version struct for os major/minor version src/Makefile.am | 1 + src/guestfs-internal.h | 22 ++++- src/inspect-fs-cd.c | 32 +++---- src/inspect-fs-unix.c | 220 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------ src/inspect-fs-windows.c | 20 ++--- src/inspect-fs.c | 33 ++----- src/inspect-i...

...moves common code to that, so it is not repeated in many places. This should help with the small refactoring proposed with https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2016-May/msg00070.html Thanks, Pino Toscano (2): src: start unifying version handling inspect: switch to version struct for os major/minor version src/Makefile.am | 1 + src/guestfs-internal.h | 22 ++++- src/inspect-fs-cd.c | 32 +++---- src/inspect-fs-unix.c | 220 +++++++++++++++++------------------------------ src/inspect-fs-windows.c | 20 ++--- src/inspect-fs.c | 33 ++----- src/inspect-i...

Hey Sean, So the processor does in-memory computing, it reads instructions and operands from the memory array, performs the majority operations within the memory array itself. It does instructions using resistive majority which is AB'+B'C+AC Like it does AND operation as 1: 0, 1, @C; //C=0 2: 0, 1, @Binv; //Binv=0 3: 1, @B, @Binv; //Binv=B 4: @A, @Binv, @C; //C=A.B where each operation is a resistive majority and ope...

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 19:23:43 CEST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > +let parse_version_from_major_minor str data = > + if verbose () then > + eprintf "parse_version_from_major_minor: parsing '%s'\n%!" str; > + > + if PCRE.matches re_major_minor str || > + PCRE.matches re_major_no_minor str then ( > + let major = > + try Some (int_of_string...

Hello everyone, I was trying to create an LLVM backend for a processor with a very simple architecture and that does all instructions like load, store, arithmetic and logical instructions using a bunch of majority functions. The processor has only one instruction(majority function) in its ISA and breaks down all other instructions into a number of majority instructions depending on what instruction it is. All the instructions have different combinations of majority operations. Is there any way to implemen...

...xml.ml @@ -34,8 +34,112 @@ let find_target_disk targets { s_disk_id = id } = try List.find (fun t -> t.target_overlay.ov_source.s_disk_id = id) targets with Not_found -> assert false +let get_osinfo_id = function + | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "rhel"; + i_major_version = major; i_minor_version = minor } -> + Some (sprintf "http://redhat.com/rhel/%d.%d" major minor) + + | { i_type = "linux"; i_distro = "centos"; + i_major_version = major; i_minor_version = minor } when major < 7 -> + Some (sprintf "ht...

...re as possible to make a good decision. The main contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally surprised by both. Brain-dump so far: - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after 2.9 came 3.0; naturally, 4.0 comes after 3.9. - There are special bitcode stability rules [1] concerning major version bumps. 2.0 and 3.0 had major IR changes, but since there aren't any this time, we should go to 3.10. - The bitcode stability rules allow for breakage with major versions, but it doesn't require it, so 4.0 is fine. - But maybe we want to save 4.0 for when we do have a significant I...

...n: rm -rf *.a *.so* *.o *.rpm $(LIB) *~ $(DEPS) xen TAGS libblktap.a: $(OBJS) - $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -Wl,-soname -Wl,$(SONAME) -shared \ + $(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(SONAME_LDFLAG) -Wl,$(SONAME) $(SHLIB_FLAGS) \ -L$(XEN_XENSTORE) -l xenstore \ -o libblktap.so.$(MAJOR).$(MINOR) $^ $(LIBS) ln -sf libblktap.so.$(MAJOR).$(MINOR) libblktap.so.$(MAJOR) diff --git a/tools/console/Makefile b/tools/console/Makefile --- a/tools/console/Makefile +++ b/tools/console/Makefile @@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ clean: xenconsoled: $(patsubst %.c,%.o,$(wildcard daemon/*.c)) $(CC) $(C...

...g equally > surprised by both. Thanks everyone for chiming in. Please correct me if I misrepresent your opinion here, but I need to try and summarize this thread for my own sanity: The thread started out with lots of support for 3.10, the reasoning being roughly that we shouldn't bump the major version number unless we want to signify major change (Mehdi, Hal, Blaikie, Saleem, Chandler, Anton, Eric, Aaron, Sean, Vikram). Richard suggested that since we do time-based rather than feature-based releases, the distinction between a release with or without major changes is arbitrary, and we sh...

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all > future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and > solves the problem once and for all -- which is another plus :) > Except that we'll have to keep dealing with people who are confused why we have two version numbers but they don't mean anything. That's why I think if we don't want major/minor going forwar...

I also support Chris's position of 4.0, 4.1 etc. I don't think "majorness" is that important, and we can sort out the bit code compatibility story some other way. Sent from phone On Jun 24, 2016 4:42 PM, "Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org...

Hello everyone, I was trying to create an LLVM backend for a processor with a very simple architecture and that does all instructions like load, store, arithmetic and logical instructions using a bunch of majority functions. The processor has only one instruction(majority function) in its ISA and breaks down all other instructions into a number of majority instructions depending on what instruction it is. All the instructions have different combinations of majority operations. Is there any way to implemen...