search for: ownership

.../lib/asterisk' than after reading the archives: I did: ./configure --enable-dev-mode --prefix=/tmp/asterisk --sysconfdir=/tmp/astconf --localstatedir=/tmp/aststate and than make install.: This is the error I am getting: tar: vm-tocallnum.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-tocancel.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-tocancelmsg.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-toenternumber.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000,...

I just download R-1.6.2 source code for unix to install. I am intalling it under redhat linux. But after ./configure, when I try to make, there always error showed: /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/BATCH': Operation not permitted /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/LINK': Operation not permitted /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/Rcmd': Operation not permitted /...

Case point: 2 Servers (both with Windows Server 2k3 & cygwin). Running ssh on the destination server. Problem: The rsync user will take ownership over any files copied over from the source server. This takes ownership away from the administrators group, thus disallowing inherited permissions. Is there any way around not taking ownership away from the administrators group and giving it to the rsync user? I've seen this done with the cwR...

...licit I suspect). > and we've seen around 20% performance > improvement over shared_ptr due to savings on acquire/release > semantics. The existing use cases I'm interested in aren't using shared_ptr and wouldn't be ideally migrated to it (in some cases the existing ownership might be on the stack (so it can't be shared) or several layers up the call stack through which raw pointers have been passed (eg: build something, pass it through a few APIs, underlying thing 'wants' to take ownership, but it will be constructed/destroyed before this API returns -...

...D 0:00 touch /pfs1/test/junk1 Anybody else run into this situation? Client mount log (/var/log/glusterfs/pfs2.log) below: [2011-06-29 10:28:07.860519] E [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:522:afr_sh_metadata_fix] 0-pfs-ro1-replicate-6: Unable to self-heal permissions/ownership of ''/'' (possible split-brain). Please fix the file on all backend volumes [2011-06-29 10:28:07.860668] E [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:522:afr_sh_metadata_fix] 0-pfs-ro1-replicate-1: Unable to self-heal permissions/ownership of ''/'' (possible split-brain)....

...re if it''s possible, Josh Susser''s blog suggests it is, but damned if I can work it out... I have: Container which can contain one or more Element. An Element is a polymorph of either a Container or a Chunk. An Element can exist in one or more Containers. I use a table called ownerships as the join between Containers and Element. Here''s some code: create_table :containers do |t| t.column :name, :string end create_table :chunks do |t| t.column :name, :string end create_table :ownerships do |t| t.column :name, :string t.column :container_id, :...

...aredDeleter> M(new Module(C.get()), ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter(C)); (or invert this and traffic in structs that have a unique_ptr<Module> and a shared_ptr<LLVMContext> as members - though the above example has the advantage that it mostly looks like unique_ptr, and you can change ownership (pass the unique_ptr<Module, CustomDeleter> to a shared_ptr and it'll correctly propagate the deleter, etc)) ... But it sounds like you're concerned with a situation in which there are a wide variety of things making Modules that are maybe outside the purview of Orc but need this own...

Agreed, the existing ownership seems sub-optimal. I wouldn't say broken, but subtle at least - looks like you get the choice to either manage the ownership of the Module object yourself, or let the context handle it (eg: currently it'd be valid to just do "{ LLVMContext C; new Module(C); new Module(C); }" - Mod...

As I’m sure many of you have noticed, I no longer have the time to be a proper code owner for SelectionDAG. In the interest of the project and to keep development running smoothly, I am resigning my code ownership. Justin Bogner has graciously volunteered to take it up. He has a strong history of LLVM contributions, a demonstrated commitment to good community development practices, and has experience shaving the infinite herd of SelectionDAG yaks. I am happy to recommend Justin take over the SelectionDAG...

...do not use environment''s and they are not defined anywhere in the puppet.conf (below). Also seeing; Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008 /Settings[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]/Settings[puppetmasterd]/File[/opt/puppet/bucket]/owner (warning): Cannot manage ownership unless running as root Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008 /Settings[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]/Settings[rails]/File[/var/lib/puppet/state/clientconfigs.sqlite3]/owner (warning): Cannot manage ownership unless running as root Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008...

...e to deallocate the module. // Explicit deletes used for clarity, we would use unique_ptrs in practice. auto &Ctx = Mod->getContext(); delete Mod; std::lock_guard<std::mutex> Lock(Ctx->getMutex()); if (Ctx.getNumModules()) delete Ctx; Another option would be to invert the ownership model and say that each Module shares ownership of its LLVMContext. That way LLVMContexts would be automatically deallocated when the last module using them is destructed (providing no other shared_ptrs to the context are held elsewhere). There are other possible approaches (e.g. side tables for t...

Hi all, I am hereby resigning my code ownership of libclc. I would like to nominate Tom Stellard as the new code owner. Thanks, -- Peter

...demonstrates how the solution with a certain type of smart pointer would look like (see changes in TGParser::ParseDef(), TGParser::InstantiateMulticlassDef() and TGParser::ParseSimpleValue()). Briefly: consider a leaky example: { T* p = new T; if (condition1) { f(p); // takes ownership of p } p->SomeMethod(); if (condition2) { return nullptr; // Leak! } g(p); // don't take ownership of p return p; } The preferred solution would look like: { smart_ptr<T> p(new T); if (condition1) { f(p.StopOwn()); // takes o...

...listed to shared pointer semantics > ? It will be a simple and clear model; unless someone justifies that it > will be a performance concern to use shared pointers there I don’t think we > need a new and more complex to reason about smart pointer. > I'd generally prefer conditional ownership over shared ownership if possible - it's a narrower contract & I can still think about where the single owner is. I know in at least some of these uses, shared pointer semantics would not be applicable - TextDiagnosticPrinter::OwnsOutputStream, for example either owns its own newly allocat...

...ozn@redhat.com>: >>> On 03.08.2016 21:17, Jonatan Schlag wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> I have a very strange problem with libvirt. I work on some >>>> machines >>>> with >>>> libvirt (Debian/ Arch Linux) and libvirt set the ownership of >>>> images >>>> file automatically to the qemu user / group for example on Arch >>>> Linux to >>>> nobody:kvm. >>>> So when I copy an image file with root and use I then with qemu, >>>> libvirt >>>>...

...ast machinery should be taught to handle unique_ptr? Presumably that'd involve cast, etc, returning raw pointers when it was passed references to unique_ptr, which might be surprising/error-prone? But the only errors would be: 1) double delete - if the result of the cast was used to take ownership because the caller didn't realize there was a unique_ptr that held ownership (eg: a function that returns a reference to a unique_ptr, passed to cast, then ownership taken) 2) dangling pointers - but this wouldn't be more or less likely with the change to cast.

...laris 2.5/sparc 14,000 users (samba released to small group, but intend to release to all) My apologies if this is a FAQ: point me in the right direction! When editing a WORD document (or Excel, and probably others), the revised file written back to the UNIX home directory loses its original ownership, group-ownership and permissions (modes) and gets a default set (me, my primary group, 644). For most people this might be OK (although 600 would be a preferable default mode), but it wrecks any file-sharing that people might be doing through groups. 1. Presumably the mode is system-wide, set by...

I'm adding some new operators to TableGen and I've run into a memory ownership issue. We have all of these Inits and RecTys flying around but I don't see any scheme to assign ownership. It looks like we're leaking memory all over. This is getting worse as I'm adding operators because I need to create new objects on-the-fly and/or return operands of operat...

...ont-size:10pt" ><div dir="ltr" >&nbsp;</div> <div dir="ltr" ><div dir="ltr" >Hi,</div> <div dir="ltr" >&nbsp;</div> <div dir="ltr" >I am trying to understand libvirt dynamic ownership behavior. I have a VM that uses a qcow2 image with the following permissions:</div> <div dir="ltr" >&nbsp;</div> <div dir="ltr" >$ ll t257kvxg-10-20-101-40.qcow2<br>-rw-r--r-- 1 jmuro libvirt 2279079936 Mar 20 11:10 t257kvxg-10-20-101-40...

Hi Martin, thanks for the explanation. Now I understand why libvirt doesn't revert the file permissions back to the original. I am running these VMs on an isolated test machine, so I'll disable dynamic file ownership and make sure libvirt has access to image files. Sorry about the message formatting. I modified settings on my client, hopefully it sends plaintext now. (I'll switch to personal email going forward, as the choice of email clients at work is limited.) -Joe From: Martin Kletzander <mkletz...