search for: partucularly

Hi There, Ive taken a look at this and cant quite figure out what is going on here. I have tested all the SQL permissions, and also changed the unix_listener auth-userdb mode to 0666 (as instructed elsewhere to try and solve this issue), but cannot seem to work out what the issue is. Would someone be able to please point me in the correct direction here? Output of log + dovecot -n via this

My stab v3 at fixing this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789279 It took me quite some time to go through the whole rfc 4122 just to realize we do not need to do anything with the versions. v3: - Do the check in precheck - Fix for Lazy evaluation of regexp UUID v2: - https://www.redhat.com/archives/libguestfs/2020-January/msg00221.html - Use EEXIST instead of EINVAL - Put the

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 03:34:48PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: >The validation helps us fail early and with a sensible error message. The NIL >UUID is not valid for oVirt, but other than that there is no other logic in >there merely because the UUID types are a matter of the generator and they are >just forwarded in this partucular case. > >Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander

My stab v2 at fixing this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789279 It took me quite some time to go through the whole rfc 4122 just to realize we do not need to do anything with the versions. v2: - Use EEXIST instead of EINVAL - Put the colliding UUID into the error - Do not evaluate the PCRE needlessly multiple times v1:

My stab at fixing this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1789279 It took me quite some time to go through the whole rfc 4122 just to realize we do not need to do anything with the versions. Martin Kletzander (2): rhv-upload: Validate UUIDs passed to -oo rhv-disk-uuid (RHBZ#1789279) rhv-upload: Check that rhv-disk-uuid is not already taken (RHBZ#1789279)

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0100, Jean-Philippe Brucker wrote: > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h > index 237e36a280cb..ec57d215086a 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_iommu.h > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_BYPASS 3 > #define VIRTIO_IOMMU_F_PROBE 4 >

The validation helps us fail early and with a sensible error message. The NIL UUID is not valid for oVirt, but other than that there is no other logic in there merely because the UUID types are a matter of the generator and they are just forwarded in this partucular case. Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- v2v/output_rhv_upload.ml | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed,

The validation helps us fail early and with a sensible error message. The NIL UUID is not valid for oVirt, but other than that there is no other logic in there merely because the UUID types are a matter of the generator and they are just forwarded in this partucular case. Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- v2v/output_rhv_upload.ml | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed,

The validation helps us fail early and with a sensible error message. The NIL UUID is not valid for oVirt, but other than that there is no other logic in there merely because the UUID types are a matter of the generator and they are just forwarded in this partucular case. Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com> --- v2v/output_rhv_upload.ml | 12 ++++++++++++ 1 file changed,

I could use some help figureing out what specifically the differences are between Samba 3.0a and 2.2.X in regards to LDAP. Partucularly when it comes to the schemata. After I've got it figured out I will see that the MandrakeSecure HOWTOs are updated to include this info to help Mandrake users who want to try a Samba 3.0 DC. Note that as yet the beta version is not available in an RPM for Mandrake. Jim C.

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 01:42:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/5/13 ??1:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Sun, May 05, 2019 at 12:20:24PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/4/26 ??3:35, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > On 2019/4/26 ??1:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 03:33:19AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: >

On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 11:12:22PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > The validation helps us fail early and with a sensible error message. The NIL > UUID is not valid for oVirt, but other than that there is no other logic in > there merely because the UUID types are a matter of the generator and they are > just forwarded in this partucular case. > > Signed-off-by: Martin

Hi everyone, Since I haven't said anything on the mailing list before, a quick introduction. I'm an intern at Apple, and over the summer I implemented a prototype for an outlining pass for code size in LLVM. Now I'm seeking to eventually upstream it. I have the preliminary code on GitHub right now, but it's still very prototypical (see the code section).

I think the "Motivation" section explained that. I too first thought about "why not at IR?" but the reason looks like MIR, post-RA has the most accurate heuristics (best way to know looks like actually getting there). Do you know if there is any experimental pass that relies on deriving heuristics by a feedback loop after letting, ie. a duplicate module/function/block continue

Hi, I let Jessica give more details but here are some insights. MIR offers a straight forward way to model benefits, because we know which instructions we remove and which one we add and there are no overhead of setting up parameters. Indeed, since the coloring will be the same between the different outlining candidates, the call is just a jump somewhere else. We do not have to worry about the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 11:06:56 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Interprocedural MIR-level

Daniel, I wonder what the NewGVN would generate for the following C code: int a, b; int foo() { return a + b; } int bar() { return a + b; } ? Obviously, the expressions would be the same ("value1 + value2"), but a single operator is not worthy to be outlined. What classes of congruency would be assigned to operands? The same for both reads of "a" and "b"? If

OK we talked about this a while ago, here's a summary and some proposals: At the moment, virtio PCI uses IO BARs for all accesses. The reason for IO use is the cost of different VM exit types of transactions and their emulation on KVM on x86 (it would be trivial to use memory BARs on non x86 platforms if they don't have PIO). Example benchmark (cycles per transaction): (io access) outw

OK we talked about this a while ago, here's a summary and some proposals: At the moment, virtio PCI uses IO BARs for all accesses. The reason for IO use is the cost of different VM exit types of transactions and their emulation on KVM on x86 (it would be trivial to use memory BARs on non x86 platforms if they don't have PIO). Example benchmark (cycles per transaction): (io access) outw

Daniel, OK, I see your point. My understanding was that VNDAG is an internal representation, not meant to be used by VN's customers (that should really care for classes of congruency, nothing more). Also, I thought that VN's results are available for a single function at a time. It seems that NewGVN provides access to VNDAGs computed for the whole program -- which enables its usage in