search for: owners

Hi there, i have a model house and a model owner A house can have many owners. Now i want to find all owners of a specific street and i want to list them So i do: houses = House.find(:all, :conditions => ''street LIKE "%foo%"'') So now i got an array of all houses in that street @owners = houses[0].owner i''ve got all the owners of...

On 09/29/2016 05:51 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > this implements the s390 backend for commit > "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" > by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into > arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the > local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the > CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted.

On 09/29/2016 05:51 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > this implements the s390 backend for commit > "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" > by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into > arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the > local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the > CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted.

On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 19:45 +0000, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > You seem to be missing two FSMO roles: > > > DomainDnsZonesMasterRole > > > ForestDnsZonesMasterRole > > > Just what version of Samba are you using ? > > My Samba 4.5.2 domain also appears to be missing these roles. > > Can I simply seize these roles? > > [root at larkin27 ~]#

> You seem to be missing two FSMO roles: > DomainDnsZonesMasterRole > ForestDnsZonesMasterRole > Just what version of Samba are you using ? My Samba 4.5.2 domain also appears to be missing these roles. Can I simply seize these roles? [root at larkin27 ~]# samba-tool fsmo show SchemaMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS Settings,CN=TEMP2008R2DC,CN=Servers,.. InfrastructureMasterRole owner:

this implements the s390 backend for commit "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> ---

this implements the s390 backend for commit "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface" by reworking the existing smp_vcpu_scheduled into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. We can then also get rid of the local cpu_is_preempted function by moving the CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test into arch_vcpu_is_preempted. Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger at de.ibm.com> ---

Hi, I've been going through my queue of candidate patches for the 3.6 branch, and I think the process could be smoother if we had more code owners. So, I'd like to encourage people to nominate themselves or others as code owners for any part of LLVM that doesn't already have one. The responsibilities of a code owner include reviewing patches submitted to llvm-commits and approving merge requests to the stable branches. To get the ba...

...ed-in onto the release_branch (rare) - patches get sent to the release manager bypassing code owner I think the root cause for this is simply the problem in identifying the code owner by the developer. We can solve this problem by providing code owner tool that can map patch to the code owner or owners who should be notified for approval. > >> I would like to propose addition of the >> "folder/file (F)" field. The format >> would be the same as used by Joe,Owen >> and Justin > This won't cover all the cases, since code in question might be > sca...

Recently tried transferring roles from Samba 4.3.11 to Samba 4.7.0. Ultimately, both dcs agreed that the 4.7.0 dc (dc3) had all the roles and replication and the databases were in good shape. However, during the process, I got a lot of errors that seemed to magically disappear. Should I be worried? root at dc3:~# samba-tool fsmo show SchemaMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS

One of these days I''ll figure this out, but in the meantime help me be a better programmer by eliminating some excess code: I''m trying to check to see if somebody trying to view/edit/update a product is the owner. In my scaffold I have this code that works: def edit @owner = Product.find(params[:id].to_i) if @owner.user_id == @user.id @product =

> More power to volunteers!  Hopefully if people talk >with each other, help each other out, and maintain a friendly and cooperative >atmosphere then all problems with code ownership will just come out in the wash. +1 I think this is where we want the community to be, and the role of the code owners should hopefully be minimal. >However another take on the whole code owner thing is that the code owner is >the person who has the final say on what goes in and what doe...

Hi Marek, I had some more thoughts and discussions with Robin about how to make this work with the Exynos driver. The result is the patch below, can you please test it and report back? Even better if you can fix up any breakage it might cause :) >From 60a288509baa34df6a0bf437c977925a0a617c72 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel at suse.de> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 13:38:18

Hi guys, I''m having a little trouble understanding the differences and knowing when to use "def foo" and "def self.foo" in my models. I don''t quite understand them and was hoping someone could explain or give me examples on how to use the "self." properly. For example, I had "def foo" in my model "Account" and in one of

Thank you so far. But unfortunately I could not fix the problems. So I decided to start over again at a situation where all the fsmo roles resides on the old controller. Here is a transcript of what I did and the errors reported: The inititial position srv-kb-dc1:~ # samba-tool fsmo show SchemaMasterRole owner: CN=NTDS Settings,CN=SRV-KB-PRIMDC,CN=Servers,CN=Default-Fi...

...le,DC=com > > Thanks, > > Mike Ray > The problem is that you need to Authenticate to transfer the domaindns and forestdns FSMO roles, this means you also need to authenticate if you transfer 'all' the FSMO roles. If 'samba-tool fsmo show is now displaying the correct owners and everything is working correctly, you are probably going to be okay. I will look into refusing to do anything if 'all' or 'domaindns' or 'forestdns' roles are selected without using authentication. Rowland

...hat. > > I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing > up to maintain and review the whole instcombine library, that would be a great level. To > see what this entails, see: > http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners I am interested and comfortable with that. I will wait a few days and then update CODE_OWNERS.TXT. -- Meador Inge CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software

...age ----- > From: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com> > To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners > > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > > > I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I > > am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think > > that we need to change every fi...

...gt; I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing >> up to maintain and review the whole instcombine library, that would be a great level. To >> see what this entails, see: >> http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-owners > > I am interested and comfortable with that. I will wait a few days and then > update CODE_OWNERS.TXT. while I think it's great that Meador is stepping forward to help out here, it does bring up the question of how expert you have to be to become a code owner. As far as I know (ple...

...rom: "Joe Abbey" <joe.abbey at gmail.com> >> To: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:25:04 PM >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners >> >> >> On Nov 17, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I >>> am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think >>> that we n...