similar to: samba question about NO SECURITY

PLEASE HELP ME!!! For some reason, I can not change any of my shares! I just started trying to configure samba yesterday. Here is what I have: (2) Windows 98 SE Systems (1) Debian 2.2 r 3 Linux System running Samba The username on the Windows machines is "Name" and I want to be able to access a few shares on the Samba machine. So I started configuring

Can't mount share on my linux boxes as a regular user. I have no trouble mounting shares as root. This problem occurs on both my linux boxes. All the commands I show I have run as a regular user. Here is all the data I have: smbmount \\\\JHAMMER6\\public /mnt/NetWork/JHAMMER6/public/ -o debug=6 mount.smbfs started (version 2.0.7) Initialising global parameters params.c:pm_process() -

Hi, I've got samba running on multiple machines, blah blah works great... On my new fax server (RH7.2) I want any windows user to be able to connect using any username/password. I got it to work with the nobody/pc guest accounts, but that defeats the purpose (I need to see their windows/default username). Basically you connect to the fake samba shared printer, and the script mails a URL

If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that vgather* is slow on all of Excavator, Haswell, Broadwell, and Skylake (client). Therefore, we will not generate it for any of those machines. Even if that's true, we should not define "gatherIsSlow()" as "hasAVX2() && !hasAVX512()". It could break for some hypothetical future processor that manages to

Ok, on local machine, everyone can do anything they want in /share and all it's files/subdirs On remote machine, everyone can do whatever they want on /share, but no one can do ANYTHING in it's subdirs. >From: Joel Hammer <Joel@HammersHome.com> >To: David Cougle <dcougle@hotmail.com>, samba@lists.samba.org >Subject: Re: [Samba] can someone PLEASE tell me how to

It seems that http://reviews.llvm.org/D15690 only implemented gather/scatter for AVX-512, but not for AVX/AVX2. Is there any plan to enable gather for AVX/2? Thanks. Best, Zhi On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I don't think gather has been enabled for AVX2 as of r261875. > Masked load/store were enabled for AVX with: >

That makes great sense. It would be great if we have profitability mode to see the necessity to use gathers. Or it also would be good if there is a compiler option for the users to enable LLVM to generate the gather instructions no matter it is faster or slow. Best, Zhi On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > If I'm understanding

The potential advantage I was considering would be more accurate cost modeling in the vectorizer, inliner, etc. Like min/max, this is another case where the sum of the IR parts is greater than the actual cost. Beyond that, it seems odd to me that we'd choose the longer IR expression of something that could be represented in a minimal form. I know we make practical concessions in IR based on

Sanjay, Kevin, Thank you for your reply. Kevin, I wonder if you are still working on it and have a plan to submit your changes for the review. Thanks, Taewook From: "Smith, Kevin B" <kevin.b.smith at intel.com<mailto:kevin.b.smith at intel.com>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: 'Sanjay Patel' <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at

No. Gather operation is slow on AVX2 processors. - Elena From: zhi chen [mailto:zchenhn at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 20:48 To: Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> Cc: Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>; Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] how to force

I linked the wrong patch review. Here's the patch that was actually committed: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48508 https://reviews.llvm.org/rL335433 On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > [adding back llvm-dev and cc'ing Craig] > > I think you are asking if we are missing a fold (or your target is missing > enabling another hook)

Thanks for your response, Sanjay. I know there are intrinsics available in C/C++. But the problem is that I want to instrument my code at the IR level and generate those instructions. I don't want to touch the source code. Best, Zhi On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > I was just looking at the related masked load/store operations, and

Sorry - I misread your example and the problem. I see now where LibCallSimplifier creates the select...but we are immediately erasing that select with the code from the godbolt example. Does the real motivating case have no uses of the pow() result value? On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:03 PM Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Yes, I mean just bail out on the transform in >

Hi all I wanted to send a message to users when they are mapping, to migrate to different samba server I am assuming preexec will do this, users are w2k clients, i would like w2k clients to get a message, like a popup windows box with message once they map to thier unix home directory how would i do that, does preexec will help me here thanks

I don't see any controversy for the preliminary requirement of removing BinaryOperator::isFNeg() and friends, so start with that? That work may reveal other potential regressions that we can patch in advance too. Other than that, I think there's really only a question of do we want 1 or both of fneg and fneg_constrained (and if we choose both, then I assume we'd also add

* Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> [2019-10-08 08:07:10 -0400]: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:08 AM Szabolcs Nagy <nsz at port70.net> wrote: > > why is that ok? > > > > Because there are no FP exceptions/signals for this IR opcode: > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#floating-point-environment so llvm cannot support an iso c frontend on an ieee754 target?

Yes, masked load/store/gather/scatter are completed. - Elena From: zhi chen [mailto:zchenhn at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 01:20 To: Demikhovsky, Elena <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> Cc: Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com>; Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] how to

Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On Nov 19, 2016 10:26 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com<mailto:spatel at rotateright.com>> wrote: > > If I have my FMA intrinsics story straight now (thanks for the explanation, Hal!), I think it raises another question about IR canonicalization (and may affect the proposed revision to IR FMF): No, I think that we specifically

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Xinliang David Li via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > +dehao. > > There are two potential problems: > > 1) the branch gets eliminated in the binary that is being profiled, so > there is no profile data > This seems like a fundamental problem for PGO. Maybe it is also responsible for this bug: