search for: supoorting

-- 此致 礼 罗勇刚 Yours sincerely, Yonggang Luo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161115/80fd3c17/attachment.html>

Hi all We're considering getting some Powerware 9355-30-M-0 UPSes to replace some older ones, so I wonder if it would be possible to use NUT for this. It seems 9315 is supported, but AFAICS that's the top model. Thanks roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can

Hi Xinhui, 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can

I can think of many people that use LLVM and maintain out of tree extentions that will likely never be incorporated into mainline. Maintaining out of tree intrnisics takes a fair amount of work and leads to the choice of using a single version of LLVM for a project (and thus have to manually incorporate bug fixes) or risk untimely breakage. I propose that the plugin be extended to allow plugable

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:43 -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu ^^ takes > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break > the spin

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:43 -0400, Pan Xinhui wrote: > This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks > implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently > kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu ^^ takes > as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break > the spin

This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu as parameter and return true if the cpu is preempted. Then kernel can break the spin loops upon on the retval of vcpu_is_preempted. As kernel has used this interface, So lets

Hi, wanpeng On 2016?07?05? 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote: > Hi Xinhui, > 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: >> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks >> implementation do a spin loop before acquiring the lock itself. Currently >> kernel has an interface of bool vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu). It take the cpu

Hi..   R Program is shown ARIMA output as below then SARIMA equation is be   (1 - 0.991B^{12})z_t + 43.557 = (1+0.37B)(1-0,915B^{12})a_t    But I try to calculate it by manual . It look like it 's big different from R sofeware,   I am not sure this equation is correct or not . PLS supoort me to confirm it   Arima Model ( 0,0,1)(1,0,1)   No Transformation Constant   >> 43.557 , t = 10.09

...eration of the VIA Nehemiah and > > Ezra processors gets used, as found on VIA Epia boards. > [...] > > Thanks, patch is applied! That's quick! It just occured to me, OpenVPN has a config option to load specific OpenSSL engines. Furthermore in the future OpenSSL is said to be supoorting a "default engine", so that applications will not need to specify them themselves. What I'm trying to say, I'm not at all sure if this patch I sent was the way to go, I simply wanted my Padlock support to work :) -- Andreas [ http://unstable.nl | xmpp:andreas@uns...

Hello! I'm setting up Asterisk on a new system. In the past, all of my Asterisk boxes have either been embedded-style systems that do not supoort APIC, or multi-processor systems where APIC comes along with SMP. However, now I'm trying to install Asterisk on a single CPU (and non-HT) system that does support APIC (A P4 Northwood an Intel 845 chipset). I've used both RHEL3 and

change fomr v1: a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. add more comments thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion. This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues. test-case: perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g

change fomr v1: a simplier definition of default vcpu_is_preempted skip mahcine type check on ppc, and add config. remove dedicated macro. add one patch to drop overload of rwsem_spin_on_owner and mutex_spin_on_owner. add more comments thanks boqun and Peter's suggestion. This patch set aims to fix lock holder preemption issues. test-case: perf record -a perf bench sched messaging -g

Hi Friends, Something I'd like to shed some light on if possible - how is it that a single ISDN conversation only uses 64K for bidirectional communication (using ulaw, correct?), but on several occasions now have seen references to ulaw voip conversations using 64K per side of the conversation, plus packet overhead (http://www.zytrax.com/tech/protocols/voip_rates.htm - seems to be down

Cc Paolo, kvm ml 2016-07-06 12:58 GMT+08:00 xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > Hi, wanpeng > > On 2016?07?05? 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> Hi Xinhui, >> 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: >>> >>> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks >>> implementation

Cc Paolo, kvm ml 2016-07-06 12:58 GMT+08:00 xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: > Hi, wanpeng > > On 2016?07?05? 17:57, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> Hi Xinhui, >> 2016-06-28 22:43 GMT+08:00 Pan Xinhui <xinhui.pan at linux.vnet.ibm.com>: >>> >>> This is to fix some lock holder preemption issues. Some other locks >>> implementation

# uname -a Linux testbox 2.6.18-194.el5 #1 SMP Tue Mar 16 21:52:39 EDT 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux # rpm -qa|grep zfs zfs-test-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-0.5.2-1 zfs-modules-devel-0.5.2-1_2.6.18_194.el5 zfs-devel-0.5.2-1 # zfs list NAME USED AVAIL REFER MOUNTPOINT pool1 120K 228G 21K /pool1 pool1/fs1 21K 228G 21K /vik [root at

The Wine development release 5.13 is now available. What's new in this release (see below for details): - Re-mapping of INI files to the registry. - System call thunks in NTDLL. - Reimplementation of floating point numbers printing. - Beginnings of a restructuration of the console support. - Various bug fixes. The source is available from the following locations: