search for: sympathy

...ed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > > IM[biased]O. > > I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split > approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 > (and similar changes for the other affected s...

...ed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > > IM[biased]O. > > I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split > approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 > (and similar changes for the other affected s...

...almost every possible iteration on the samba.conf file, looked at logs until nauseated and have concluded that there is no way that Windows ME can connect to a Linux box using Samba. Connecting to the WinME box from Linux works fine. I hope someone can prove me wrong. Please don't send me any sympathy or 'works for me' mail unless you include the exact UNC used on the WinME machine, how to find the server/user names you used, and the configuration files. Remember we are talking WinME only! TIA -- Bob McLaughlin <bobm142@attbi.com>

...PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: >>>> I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This >>>> will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a >>>> downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect >>>> sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost >>>> IM[biased]O. >>> >>> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split >>> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 >>> (and s...

...PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: >>>> I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This >>>> will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a >>>> downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect >>>> sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost >>>> IM[biased]O. >>> >>> I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split >>> approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 >>> (and s...

hello Sean, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > IM[biased]O. I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be triv...

hello Sean, On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 02:31:02PM -0400, Sean Paul wrote: > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This > will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a > downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect > sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost > IM[biased]O. I agree that for backports this isn't so nice. However with the split approach (that was argumented against here) it's not soo bad. Patch #1 (and similar changes for the other affected structures) could be triv...

The marilith boxes use a conserver (http://www.conserver.com/) setup for serial access. Our installation exports the logs via http allowing us to grab them with wget. Sending debug keys with is handled separately via xenuse. xenuse ultimately speaks to the conserver too but it abstracts away the IP and port to use so this is preferred. With these changes the correct Serial hostprop for a

...v is usually a drm > device, i.e. struct drm_device *. As shown by the numbers above. > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost IM[biased]O. Sean > If folks insist on following through with this anyway, I'm firmly in the > camp the name should be "drm" and nothing else. > > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel...

...v is usually a drm > device, i.e. struct drm_device *. As shown by the numbers above. > I'd really prefer this patch (series or single) is not accepted. This will cause problems for everyone cherry-picking patches to a downstream kernel (LTS or distro tree). I usually wouldn't expect sympathy here, but the questionable benefit does not outweigh the cost IM[biased]O. Sean > If folks insist on following through with this anyway, I'm firmly in the > camp the name should be "drm" and nothing else. > > > BR, > Jani. > > > -- > Jani Nikula, Intel...

...ral layout is permitted using VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT. In >> > addition, some implementations may have large-but-reasonable >> > restrictions on total descriptor size (such as based on IOV_MAX >> > in the host OS). This has not been a problem in practice: little >> > sympathy will be given to drivers which create unreasonably-sized >> > descriptors such as dividing a network packet into 1500 >> > single-byte descriptors! >> >> That's fine with me too. >> So which bit are we using for this? >> I'd like to rebase to lates...

...ral layout is permitted using VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT. In >> > addition, some implementations may have large-but-reasonable >> > restrictions on total descriptor size (such as based on IOV_MAX >> > in the host OS). This has not been a problem in practice: little >> > sympathy will be given to drivers which create unreasonably-sized >> > descriptors such as dividing a network packet into 1500 >> > single-byte descriptors! >> >> That's fine with me too. >> So which bit are we using for this? >> I'd like to rebase to lates...

...ce features indicate that > general layout is permitted using VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT. In > addition, some implementations may have large-but-reasonable > restrictions on total descriptor size (such as based on IOV_MAX > in the host OS). This has not been a problem in practice: little > sympathy will be given to drivers which create unreasonably-sized > descriptors such as dividing a network packet into 1500 > single-byte descriptors! That's fine with me too. So which bit are we using for this? I'd like to rebase to latest bits and merge the optimization for 3.11. -- MST

...ce features indicate that > general layout is permitted using VIRTIO_F_ANY_LAYOUT. In > addition, some implementations may have large-but-reasonable > restrictions on total descriptor size (such as based on IOV_MAX > in the host OS). This has not been a problem in practice: little > sympathy will be given to drivers which create unreasonably-sized > descriptors such as dividing a network packet into 1500 > single-byte descriptors! That's fine with me too. So which bit are we using for this? I'd like to rebase to latest bits and merge the optimization for 3.11. -- MST

...ntation-defined value is allowable, regardless of -ffast-math). As mentioned earlier, a number of other compilers also generate NaN with -ffast-math or its equivalent. I believe this is done to comply with the Posix wording. Regardless of feelings about playing benchmark games (with which I have sympathy), people tend to compile many of the SPECfp benchmarks with -ffast-math so they can, e.g., use FMA instructions in their publishes. But this is a side issue, and I'm rather sorry I mentioned SPEC at all. This is really an issue of internal and external consistency. Thanks, Bill > > – S...

...to SAS for a one-year students license), I will probably buy SAS, because people I will work with use SAS and I want a close cooperation with them. Besides I guess that SAS is still much more powerful than SAS. But: can ?t you convince me to choose R? I would appreciate that very much, because my sympathy is with the r-project. Maybe the syntax of both programs is quite similar, so I will still be able to exchange a lot of experience with my SAS-using future collegues!? Or I could even convince the newcomers to swap to R!? If you know some arguments, I should consider for my decission, I am looking...

...VM's optimizers, and reduces the pressure to improve things. A dragonegg feature: users want their code to run fast. Turning on the GCC optimizers results in faster code, ergo the GCC optimizers should be turned on by default. That way you get faster compile times and fast code. I have some sympathy for both viewpoints... Ciao, Duncan.

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. > > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to

On Wed, 12 Jul 2023, Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de> wrote: > Hello, > > while I debugged an issue in the imx-lcdc driver I was constantly > irritated about struct drm_device pointer variables being named "dev" > because with that name I usually expect a struct device pointer. > > I think there is a big benefit when these are all renamed to

...in the same case and played the same number of times on the same player; in short, they have the same history since pruchase. Both appear visually to be in the same excellent condition. But on my latest playing of them, the second CD has acquired some fairly substantial white noise which varies in sympathy with the music volume. The music itself is intact and the player seems to have no problem reading the disc. I have not tried playing it on another system as yet, but given that this is the only CD which exhibits this problem, I strongly suspect it is not a player fault. So I have two questions to...