search for: overthinking

...gt; * 2 x 8 >> >> The other choice I'd make: put 2 x 11 and 2 x 10 in the UPS, leaving the external battery >> unit with: >> >> * 3 x 10 >> * 7 x 9 >> * 2 x 8 >> >> I don't know enough to know if this matters and I expect I'm merely overthinking this. > > You are definitely overthinking it :-) Perhaps you've previously been > diagnosed as a nerd! Possibly. I also have a rain-barrel project underway, and I know I'm overthinking that one too. > But, I would either put the 4 strongest in the UPS, or the 4 weakest, >...

...2 x 11 > * 1 x 10 > * 7 x 9 > * 2 x 8 > > The other choice I'd make: put 2 x 11 and 2 x 10 in the UPS, leaving the external battery > unit with: > > * 3 x 10 > * 7 x 9 > * 2 x 8 > > I don't know enough to know if this matters and I expect I'm merely overthinking this. You are definitely overthinking it :-) Perhaps you've previously been diagnosed as a nerd! But, I would either put the 4 strongest in the UPS, or the 4 weakest, making the external pack better, since it is more important. I would suggest that you get a West Mountain CBA, if you want t...

...will leave the following for the external pack: ' * 2 x 11 * 1 x 10 * 7 x 9 * 2 x 8 The other choice I'd make: put 2 x 11 and 2 x 10 in the UPS, leaving the external battery unit with: * 3 x 10 * 7 x 9 * 2 x 8 I don't know enough to know if this matters and I expect I'm merely overthinking this. -- Dan Langille dan at langille.org

...er Major Minor RaidDevice State 0 8 3 0 active sync /dev/sda3 1 8 19 1 active sync /dev/sdb3 2 8 35 2 active sync /dev/sdc3 3 8 51 3 active sync /dev/sdd3 Am I overthinking this? Does the kernel handle the mirror/stripe configuration under the hood, simply presenting me with a magical RAID10 array? Or, is this something different and I really should be performing the RAID creation manually as noted in option #1? Help me CentOS-Kenobi, you're my only hope. --Tim

...the time that I generate the object ID and actually make the decision to save the object. I am toying with the idea of using an ID generator for this object. I wanted to get some input on using an "external to the DB" generator to create my unique ids for insertion into the DB. Am I overthinking this? Should I just do the insert as soon as possible to have the DB generate my ID, use the ID as I need to, and then either delete that record (or rollback a transaction) later if it turns out that the record shouldn''t be saved after all? Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Wes -- Pos...

Anthony Liguori <anthony at codemonkey.ws> writes: > The headers say they are BSD licensed... but they include a GPLv2+ > header. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? It makes perfect sense: you're overthinking it. It just means that copying the BSD headers outside Linux is encouraged. And it's clearly nonsensical to claim the GPL on kernel headers means that userspace needs to be GPL. So please ignore this licensing red-herring. And we'll bikeshed the headers in the standard when we have to :...

...volatile keyword is like the register keyword, I don't believe they're the same. I believe register is defined as a hint whereas volatile is supposed to be respected by the compiler (language lawyers: feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). In my opinion, I think you guys are really overthinking this: volatile should be volatile should be volatile. It makes the behavior of volatile easy to understand, it makes it easy to use, it allows LLVM to support the rules for the volatile keyword in C (AFAIK), and it doesn't require you to guess all the different, contorted ways in which vol...

Hi Torok, >>> Well...strictly as LLVM IR I find externally visible incorrect >>> behavior unlikely, it's just a "different definition". For C and >>> C++, I'd be looking at more complicated variations of >>> >>> int main() >>> { >>> volatile int i = 1; >>> return 0; >>> } >>>

...ss years, so how do I differentiate the different time periods in the syntax for the formula? Do I need to also create two new variables per: MyVar.1 [year = 1] <- MyVar MyVar.2 [year = 2] <- MyVar svychisq(~MyVar.1+MyVar.2, BothYears, statistic=?Chisq?, na.rm= TRUE) (I feel like I may be overthinking this and the answer is much simpler) -- View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/svychisq-using-two-frames-tp4631220.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...stcorp.com.au> writes: > > > Anthony Liguori <anthony at codemonkey.ws> writes: > >> The headers say they are BSD licensed... but they include a GPLv2+ > >> header. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it? > > > > It makes perfect sense: you're overthinking it. It just means that > > copying the BSD headers outside Linux is encouraged. > > Copying by hand and modifying. This patch series attempts to do it > automatically within QEMU. > > > And it's clearly nonsensical to claim the GPL on kernel headers means > > t...

I''m fairly certain this is an easy question to answer but I like to make things more complicated than they need to be. I notice that a lot of people have: RAILS_ENV=production .. in their environment.rb files I don''t have this in mine on production but passenger/apache startup my app just fine in production mode. So, is it really necessary? I also noticed that in order to

...do with the server configuration. Since I can?t access the config of my hosting provider, I can?t make any comparisons, so I thought I?d ask on the list if there is any standard guidance on server side configuration of special use folders in Dovecot or if there?s no guidance available because I?m overthinking this. :) Thanks, Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20200607/ced0d45a/attachment.html>

..._queue() is called by vhost_transport_send_pkt() without > holding vhost_dev.mutex (like vhost_poll_queue() in several places). > > If vhost_work_queue() finds dev->worker.vtsk not NULL, how can we > be sure that for example `work_list` has been initialized? > > Maybe I'm overthinking since we didn't have this problem before or the > race is really short that it never happened. Yeah, I dropped the READ/WRITE_ONCE use because I didn't think we needed it for the vhost_vsock_start case, and for the case you mentioned above, I wondered the same thing as you but was not s...

I currently have a model that simply contains one datetime field: class CreateElectricityReadings < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :clocks do |t| t.datetime :time_keeper t.timestamps end end def self.down drop_table :clocks end end If I enter the date string "13/10/2010" into this field its showing up in the controller as

...ansport_send_pkt() without > > holding vhost_dev.mutex (like vhost_poll_queue() in several places). > > > > If vhost_work_queue() finds dev->worker.vtsk not NULL, how can we > > be sure that for example `work_list` has been initialized? > > > > Maybe I'm overthinking since we didn't have this problem before or the > > race is really short that it never happened. > > Yeah, I dropped the READ/WRITE_ONCE use because I didn't think we needed > it for the vhost_vsock_start case, and for the case you mentioned above, I > wondered the same t...

...orker.vtsk = vtsk; vhost_work_queue() is called by vhost_transport_send_pkt() without holding vhost_dev.mutex (like vhost_poll_queue() in several places). If vhost_work_queue() finds dev->worker.vtsk not NULL, how can we be sure that for example `work_list` has been initialized? Maybe I'm overthinking since we didn't have this problem before or the race is really short that it never happened. Thanks, Stefano

Hi Alexey, >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev [..] > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from happening? Yes, I think that the lack of bitcode support will prevent it. During the Developers meeting, I also talked with Hal and Johannes. They had some extra remarks: - (1) the restrict

Hi Johannes et al, > -----Original Message----- > From: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov> [..] > On 11/06, Jeroen Dobbelaere wrote: > > >From: Alexey Zhikhartsev > > [..] > > > We would love to see your patches merged as soon as possible, so I was > wondering: do you think the lack of bitcode support will prevent that from > happening? >

...one would ask them not to, but I worry that you never know what is going to happen over the course of many transformation passes. Like, imagine: shared.block: %foo = phi i1 [1, %lpad1], [0, %lpad2] … %fubar = call i1 @bar(i1 %foo) … br i1 %fubar, label %dispatch1, label %dispatch2 Am I overthinking this? -Andy From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:06 PM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: David Majnemer; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: C++ exception handling On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com<mailto:and...

...he server configuration. > > Since I can?t access the config of my hosting provider, I can?t make any comparisons, so I thought I?d ask on the list if there is any standard guidance on server side configuration of special use folders in Dovecot or if there?s no guidance available because I?m overthinking this. :) It's totally up to you. What ever you prefer. Some people put special use folders into root, some put them under INBOX. That is why special_use exists so that server can tell clients which folders are for special use. Sami -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment...