similar to: Can't See All Linux Shares

(SuSE Pro 9.3, Samba 3.0.13-1.1) I have a Samba server set up on a Linux machine. I have four shares set up, not counting all those system things (homes, profiless, etc). When I access the shares from a Windows machine, the four shares show up like they're supposed to, in addition to the system things. However, when I access the shares from a Linux machine, two of the four shares do not

(SuSE Linux Pro 9.2, Samba 3.0.9) I have a simple network, 10/100 Ethernet, consisting of a Linux file server/workstation, a WindowsXP workstation, and a laptop dual-booted for Linux and WindowsXP. I have several Samba shares, defined using YaST, on the file server. The problem is: When I access the Samba shares using the laptop WindowsXP, all shares show up and I am able to access them in

> On May 9, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The llvm scheduling model is quite simple and doesn't allow mca to accurately simulate the execution of individual uOPs. That limitation is sort-of acceptable if you consider how the scheduling model framework was originally designed with a different goal in mind (i.e. machine

Hi Alex, On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 4:00 PM Alex Renda <renda at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Thanks, that’s very helpful! > > > > Also, sorry for the miscue on that bug with the 2/4 cycles — I realize now > that that’s an artifact of a change that I made to not crash when resource > groups overlap without all atomic subunits being specified: > > `echo 'fxrstor

Hello, I'm trying to evaluate the performance improvement of instruction scheduling on one of the inorder ARM processor, I was looking for ARM simulator and I found two (Simplescalar/ARM and SimIt-ARM) The code generated using llvm-2.9 and llvm-gcc and gcc 3.2. I used these command : $ llvm-gcc -O3 -o test1.bc -c --emit-llvm test1.c $ llc -O3 -o test1.s -march=arm test1.bc -mcpu=strongarm110

Hello, I read in the announcement of the UOP that Open Ldap will be deprecated after Version 5 an replaced by the Directory Server. Is the Directory Server included in CentOS 5 or only included in the Version 5 orf the UOP? Cheers Sebastian

[You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> .] Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis for all scheduling work done by LLVM. Unfortunately, vendors usually release only partial (and sometimes incorrect) information. Updating the

On 03/15/2018 10:04 AM, Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC > here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#>.] > > Knowing instruction scheduling properties (latency, uops) is the basis > for all scheduling work done by LLVM. > > >

Sounds like a very useful tool.  Thank you for contributing. Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, combining this with the recently contributed llvm-mca dramatically improves our scheduling and performance analysis story.  Being able to take a snippet of code on a particular machine, measure latency/throughput/ports for each instruction (this tool), and then analyze the entire

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 03/15/2018 10:04 AM, Guillaume Chatelet via llvm-dev wrote: > > [You can find an easier to read and more complete version of this RFC here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QidaJMJUyQdRrFKD66vE1_N55whe0coQ3h1GpFzz27M/edit?ts=5aaa84ee#> > .] > > Knowing

Ooops, we did it again ... This release (4.7) has the first release notes on the wiki for a CentOS 4 release. And as always we could use some people to translate those :) We didn't find that many problems within QA, so the release notes should now be fairly complete, with limitied changes to them. ISo if you are interested and willing (you are, aren't you?), this is the place to edit:

I'm running Samba Version 3.0.14a on Debian Linux. My sm.conf is listed at the end of this message. I have two printers on server.thresh.lan, a Brother HL-1440 laser printer and an HP-5510 Office Jet (printer/scanner/fax/copier/gopher and dishwasher). The Brother is named "laser" and the HP is named "multiuse". I have a multi-boot system on the LAN that can boot

I have a small LAN that is mostly Linux. I use Windows for testing my software and a few other limited uses. I recently had a server crash and could not reconstruct my smb.conf file. I don't want to act as a domain controller or have the Windows systems log on to the net. All I want the Windows systems to do is to see the Samba servers and browse them to find the Samba shares and to

Hi all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of

Hi all, I am very new to the wonderful world of Samba (I have to keep telling my assistant that its not a south american dance...) and require a little assistance. I have downloaded the latest version of Samba, together with all of the documentation. I have managed to sucessfully untar the files but I am having difficulty compiling the files. I am using SCO Unix and when I type in the

Hi, I’m trying to work out the behavior of llvm-mca on instructions with ProcResGroups. My current understanding is: When an instruction requests a port group (e.g., HWPort015) and all of its atomic sub-resources (e.g., HWPort0,HWPort1,HWPort5), HWPort015 is marked as “reserved” and is issued in parallel with HWPort0, HWPort1, and HWPort5, blocking future instructions from reserving HWPort015

Hi, on ia64, the do_* functions for hypercalls are called in C. However, they are not declared in any .h file. I think it is cleaner to declare them in an header file rather than locally. The question is in which header file. Thank you for any suggestion. The do_* functions are at least: extern long do_ni_hypercall(void); extern long do_dom0_op(dom0_op_t *u_dom0_op); extern long

Hi all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of

Two other things: 1) I get massively more stable execution times on 16.04 than on 14.04 on both x86 and ARM because 16.04 does far fewer gratuitous moves from one core to another, even without explicit pinning. 2) turn off ASLR: "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomize_va_space". As well as getting stable addresses for debugging repeatability, it also stabilizes execution time

Hi, Yeah, now I understand the problem here. Thanks. But I too have another doubt in "Bounds check bypass store" In this example in the Speculative load hardening : unsigned char local_buffer[4];unsigned char *untrusted_data_from_caller = ...;unsigned long untrusted_size_from_caller = ...;if (untrusted_size_from_caller < sizeof(local_buffer)) { // Speculative execution enters here