Displaying 20 results from an estimated 229 matches for "reapplied".
2014 Apr 22
2
"Reapplying" sieve rules
I did a mistake (shame on me).
While migrating accounts on a new server, I didn't pay attention to a detail: sieve_max_actions, that I set to a low value for my testings, but then forgot to raise before the migration.
As a result, several redirect-only accounts have now their inbox filled with messages that should have been redirected to "real people", then discarded.
Would there
2018 Jun 17
2
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:39:11PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Running a kernel with ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled in one of my VMs, I met the
> splat below. I tracked it back to 4.14-stable, and bisected it there.
Why does your virtual machine use a drm driver? Ah, it's a driver for
virtual gpu, nice.
And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
> #
2018 Jun 17
2
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 05:39:11PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Running a kernel with ATOMIC_SLEEP enabled in one of my VMs, I met the
> splat below. I tracked it back to 4.14-stable, and bisected it there.
Why does your virtual machine use a drm driver? Ah, it's a driver for
virtual gpu, nice.
And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
> #
2018 Jun 17
0
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>
> And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
Yes.
-Mike
2018 Jun 17
2
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
>
> Yes.
Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert
in older kernels as well?
thanks,
greg k-h
2018 Jun 18
0
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On 17 June 2018 at 21:02, Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> >
>> > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert
2018 Jun 17
2
v4.14.21+: ATOMIC_SLEEP splat bisected to 9428088c90b6 ("drm/qxl: reapply cursor after resetting primary")
On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:38:06PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-06-17 at 11:36 +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > And if you revert that patch, does everything work again?
>
> Yes.
Great, Dave, care to revert this in 4.18 so I can queue up that revert
in older kernels as well?
thanks,
greg k-h
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
Yes. I'm seeing this as well and it predates Kostya's change. Shows up as
memory corruption or double free on Linux.
On Nov 14, 2013 10:46 PM, "Alexey Samsonov" <samsonov at google.com> wrote:
> FYI I've seen what looked like a memory corruption in (private) Clang
> bootstrap process long before Kostya's changes were submitted. I hope I'll
> have the
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
No, not that I am aware of.
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>> The bit code file produced by the stage 1 compiler for one of the files in the clang driver is corrupt and causes the linker for stage 2 to crash.
>
> Is AddressSanitizer involved in
2013 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
I was able to successfully build with r194701, so I have reapplied that along with the compiler-rt changes. Somehow we need to get to the bottom of the problem. If you can reproduce it, please help!!
On Nov 14, 2013, at 11:01 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. I'm seeing this as well and it predates Kostya's change. Sho...
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
I don’t know yet, but I will let you know as soon as I can.
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>> No, not that I am aware of.
>
> So, if my commits did indeed trigger the failures it could be
> something like binary size change that caused
2013 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
> No, not that I am aware of.
So, if my commits did indeed trigger the failures it could be
something like binary size change that caused different code alignment
or some such
and which triggered a latent memory bug somewhere else.
It's already late evening for you now. Will you have a chance to
reapply
2014 Mar 26
1
Recreating nwfilter rules without a restart
Let's say I have some iptables rules defined to restrict guest traffic.
If I restart the hosts firewall 'service iptables restart', all the
guest-specific rules get blown away.
Is there a way to reapply all the guest firewall rules, without
restarting each individual guest?
It looks like if I edit a nwfilter with `virsh nwfilter-edit` it goes
and reapplies the rules to all the
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
I’m waiting to see if this fixes the buildbots. Unfortunately, because they were failing all day, there are a bunch of other regressions that have come up, and I’m still working through them. It takes quite a while to run a bootstrapped LTO clang build, so it will take a while longer.
I don’t have any other useful information at this point, and I share your puzzlement about how your changes
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Kostya,
>
> Thanks for the heads-up on this. I haven’t had a chance to look into the
> details yet, but it looks like these patches may be breaking our
> bootstrapped LTO build. Our buildbots have been failing all day, and we’re
> still trying to figure out the problem. I’m going to
2016 Jan 25
1
Persistent tun/tap
Ok. I'm configuring my iptables scripts so that specific iptables rules for virtual network interfaces used for tinc go on tinc-up-fw and tinc-down-fw custom scripts. When I reload iptables rules manually to apply changes iptables scripts flush all chains and reapply rules and now also search in /etc/tinc/<netname>/ directories if the related virtual network interface is up and running
2013 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
The bit code file produced by the stage 1 compiler for one of the files in the clang driver is corrupt and causes the linker for stage 2 to crash.
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:13 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> What are the symptoms?
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>> I’m waiting to see if this fixes the
2013 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
FYI I've seen what looked like a memory corruption in (private) Clang
bootstrap process long before Kostya's changes were submitted. I hope I'll
have the chance to investigate it soon.
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
> I don’t know yet, but I will let you know as soon as I can.
>
> On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Kostya
2013 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] asan coverage
Also, when are you planing to "reapply the changes or help debug"?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>> Hi Kostya,
>>
>> Thanks for the heads-up on this. I haven’t had a chance to look into the
>> details yet, but it looks
2019 Sep 29
3
ScalarEvolution invariants around wrapping flags
Your reasoning sounds correct to me. Let's revert for now?
I don't think there is an easy fix, we'll have to do a global "must be
executed" analysis to reapply the patch soundly. And that's difficult
since any external functional call can call "exit(0)".
-- Sanjoy
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:19 AM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>