search for: rethink

I feel the need to apologize for my previous email to the list. I was thinking that I was sharing something that I am currently exited with, with my associates. I now realize that I was sooo... off-topic, it's ridiculous. Sorry for the improper post to the list. Feel free to keep any further comments, concerning my improper use of the list, off-list. Thank You, Steven B TeamVie at

I spent the last couple of days rethinking how we go about building the appliance, and the difficulties we have porting that to other Linux distros. I've come up with a much better way that works better and faster on (so far) Fedora and Debian (probably on Ubuntu too, not tried it), and should be much simpler to port to other distro...

Dear All, I've read Thomas Lumley's fortune "If the answer is parse() you should usually rethink the question.". But I am not sure it that also applies (and why) to other situations (Lumley's comment http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/R/help/05/02/12204.html was in reply to accessing a list). Suppose I have similarly called functions, except for a postfix. E.g. f.1 <- function(x)...

Hi All, This past Wine conference, while great fun as always, was not as well attended as Wine conferences in the past. So I would like to stir up trouble by suggesting we rethink WineConf. For those that have not attended, the Wine conference has been a mostly annual affair since 2002. It is open to all, but is advertised as being aimed at Wine developers. About 35 people attend each year. It's been in Minnesota about every 3rd year, and is otherwise 'normally...

...I ever have to do anything BGP-related. Anyone have any pointers before I delve in? Or possibly a recommendation for another open source routing solution? Yeah, I know about Cisco stuff, but I'm hoping to limp along on a shoestring budget until I get a few more things in place, then I'll rethink everything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080427/185eab58/attachment-0001.html>

...;>> + >>> + rvq->rh = rvq->rt = 0; >>> + rvq->rt = skb_array_consume_batched_bh(rvq->rx_array, rvq->rxq, >>> + VHOST_RX_BATCH); >> A comment explaining why is is -bh would be helpful. > > Ok. > > Thanks Rethink about this. It looks like -bh is not needed in this case since no consumer run in bh. Thanks

...is looks like it'll create a mess with either virtio pci >> or vdpa being loaded at random. Maybe just don't specify >> any IDs for now. Down the road we could get a >> distinct vendor ID or a range of device IDs for this. > > > Right, will do. > > Thanks Rethink about this. If we don't specify any ID, the binding won't work. How about using a dedicated subsystem vendor id for this? Thanks

...;>> + >>> + rvq->rh = rvq->rt = 0; >>> + rvq->rt = skb_array_consume_batched_bh(rvq->rx_array, rvq->rxq, >>> + VHOST_RX_BATCH); >> A comment explaining why is is -bh would be helpful. > > Ok. > > Thanks Rethink about this. It looks like -bh is not needed in this case since no consumer run in bh. Thanks

...is looks like it'll create a mess with either virtio pci >> or vdpa being loaded at random. Maybe just don't specify >> any IDs for now. Down the road we could get a >> distinct vendor ID or a range of device IDs for this. > > > Right, will do. > > Thanks Rethink about this. If we don't specify any ID, the binding won't work. How about using a dedicated subsystem vendor id for this? Thanks

Hello, can CentOS 6.8 be run on a mini-PC like this? https://www.zotac.com/product/mini_pcs/zbox-ci323-nano would like to configure this as a Firewall, and this should be instead of my router (integratet firewall, NAT) and wlan-ap Thanks, Walter

...gt;>> or vdpa being loaded at random. Maybe just don't specify >>>> any IDs for now. Down the road we could get a >>>> distinct vendor ID or a range of device IDs for this. >>> >>> Right, will do. >>> >>> Thanks >> >> Rethink about this. If we don't specify any ID, the binding won't work. > We can bind manually. It's not really for production anyway, so > not a big deal imho. I think you mean doing it via "new_id", right. > >> How about using a dedicated subsystem vendor id for t...

...gt;>> or vdpa being loaded at random. Maybe just don't specify >>>> any IDs for now. Down the road we could get a >>>> distinct vendor ID or a range of device IDs for this. >>> >>> Right, will do. >>> >>> Thanks >> >> Rethink about this. If we don't specify any ID, the binding won't work. > We can bind manually. It's not really for production anyway, so > not a big deal imho. I think you mean doing it via "new_id", right. > >> How about using a dedicated subsystem vendor id for t...

Hi llvm list ! Everything is in the question. I've read this discussion on the mailinglist * [LLVMdev] LLVM IR is a compiler IR<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/N3r_a1Vbrog/discussion> . * But since llvm3 and type system rewrite, is it a good idea to rethink about a VM wich could run the IR bytecode directly? llvm has differents bytecode from low level, to more hight level... So do you see some interest to have this kind of VM for one of this bytcode ? Is it hight level enougth like java byte code ? My second obvious question is about the bycode form...

I am working on wxFileType and wxMimeTypesManager, most of which I have done but I had to comment out a nested class in wxFileType and the methods that use it. Does anyone have a clever way to get around nested classes since SWIG does not currently support them? Sean

...cewise logistic regression, but it doesn't have a continuous function though. I hope that R would have a specific command to do the piecewise (non)linear regression. I would apprecaite your suggestion. Sincerely yours, Nhum _________________________________________________________________ Rethink your business approach for the new year with the helpful tips here.

...emoved and everything still > works. I'm definitely not ready to lock down the debug metadata format > and I really don't think we should for any of the other uses since > stripping already works. (Note, I don't consider function attributes > etc as metadata) We may need to rethink this. If metadata is used only as optimization / codegen hints, then yes I agree they can be dropped. But I suspect there is a need for metadata that’s *required* for correctness. As LLVM continues to gain clients beyond “just” compilers, we will need to be sensitive to their needs. I anticipate us...

So, I have a test domain set up with rfc2307 = yes . Now I'm trying to figure out if a) my nfs automount data came over from OpenLDAP, and b) if not, how to get it into samba 4's ldap, or something else??? Do I need to rethink my approach? Mount locations are pretty consistent based on primary group/userid Needs to work on Linux. Existing entries look like this... # /u, auto.master, standard.k12.ca.us dn: cn=/u,ou=auto.master,dc=standard,dc=k12,dc=ca,dc=us objectClass: top objectClass: automount cn: /u autom...

...#39;m definitely not ready to lock down the debug metadata format >>> and I really don't think we should for any of the other uses since >>> stripping already works. (Note, I don't consider function attributes >>> etc as metadata) >> >> We may need to rethink this. If metadata is used only as optimization / codegen hints, then yes I agree they can be dropped. But I suspect there is a need for metadata that’s *required* for correctness. As LLVM continues to gain clients beyond “just” compilers, we will need to be sensitive to their needs. I anticipate us...

Hello, Is there any way of removing this line from showing on the console? I have a script that logs in every few seconds to manager and it makes the CLI output very hard to follow because of the " == Parsing '/etc/asterisk/manager.conf': Found". (Yes, Found! manager.conf was there 3 seconds ago, guess what it's still there.) There is a very old feature request about this

...loaded at random. Maybe just don't specify >>>>>> any IDs for now. Down the road we could get a >>>>>> distinct vendor ID or a range of device IDs for this. >>>>> Right, will do. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>> Rethink about this. If we don't specify any ID, the binding won't work. >>> We can bind manually. It's not really for production anyway, so >>> not a big deal imho. >> >> I think you mean doing it via "new_id", right. > I really meant driver_override....