similar to: Logon scripts not working on all users

With a recent upgrade to Centos 4.6 my system's Samba was also upgraded to 3.0.25b. But now I get a series of auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_administrators(792) and auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_users(758) errors every day. As I understand it winbind allows users to be logged in as Linux users when they log in as Windows users. But since I don't want them to have access to the

I'm setting up a Samba server using CentOS 4's (RedHat Enterprise Linux) standard version (v.3.0101411). I want to be able to force users to change their password upon first logging in and to have to change them after a certain period of time (per user, not system-wide). The problem is that the pdbedit commands don't seem to be registering at all in the database. If I enter the

With a recent upgrade to Centos 4.6 my system's Samba was also upgraded to 3.0.25b. Now I get the following errors in my log every day. > **Unmatched Entries** > auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_administrators(792) create_builtin_administrators: Failed to create Administrators : 1430 Time(s) > auth/auth_util.c:create_builtin_users(758) create_builtin_users: Failed to create Users

I'm looking to move my companies server from an old Netware 5.0 file server to a Linux/Samba server on new hardware. Since my companies' systems are not mission critical (I can afford to be down for a few hours at a time after a switch-over) I feel I have the tolerance for some problems in getting it installed. Is this something I should be able to handle on my own (I installed the NW

When I open the "Printers and Faxes" folder in Windows to view print queues my firewall gets a bunch of incoming packets from the server each from an ever increasing port number. (It is now up to 32840.) These are going to local ports 139 and 445. (The netbios ports.) Is this normal behavior? Should I be allowing these access to the system? Thanks in advance

Ok. I attached my current config file just in case. I set it to run as win2k and copied over the commdlg and COMDLG32 dlls from native windows 2000. (does it matter if they might be updated with service packs?) i then added "winspool" = "" in the dll overrides so that it wouldnt load the printspool.drv because for some reason when i started it would show the page setup dialog

Hi, We have a setup like this: - W2003 AD PDC - Redhat Advanced Server 3.0 with Samba 3.0.0 / CUPS as a print server - Windows XP Professional clients Problem: Users can't connect printers, even administrators are out of luck, getting a "You are not allowed to connect printer" like messages. But there is one account that is allowed to connect printers, and after this account has

Hi James, This is very good feedback. 1. Adding the new calling conventions - It seems like the appropriate thing to do vs. metadata. Some OpenCL backends can choose to implement this calling convention and use it during code generation of OpenCL functions/kernels. Can we agree on this item? 2. Restricting the allowable instructions - As Micah mentioned before, the restrictions are there

Hi James, some additional comments regarding some of your questions: Q: Is SPIR meant to be storage-only, or to allow optimizations to be done? I agree with Micah that optimizing a SPIR module might make it less portable. However, SPIR doesn't prohibit optimizations. It is up to the OpenCL optimizer to decide when to "materialize" SPIR to a device specific LLVM module or even

Hi Boaz, David, Thanks for taking my responses on board. > 1. Adding the new calling conventions - It seems like the appropriate thing to do vs. metadata. Some OpenCL backends can choose to implement this calling convention and use it during code generation of OpenCL functions/kernels. Can we agree on this item? Hmm, this is the one I was most shaky on. I still don't fully understand

On Sep 6, 2012, at 4:33 PM, "Ouriel, Boaz" <boaz.ouriel at intel.com> wrote: > **** Introduction **** > Lately, Khronos has ratified a new provisional specification which is called SPIR. > This specification standardizes an intermediate representation for the OpenCL kernel language. > It is based on LLVM infrastructure and this is why I am sending this mail to the

Al, Could this be included in the vfs queue? This patch adds ioctls to vfs for compatibility with legacy XFS pre-allocation ioctls (XFS_IOC_*RESVP*). The implementation effectively invokes sys_fallocate for the new ioctls. Also handles the compat_ioctl case. Note: These legacy ioctls are also implemented by OCFS2. Signed-off-by: Ankit Jain <me at ankitjain.org> Reviewed-by: Christoph

From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:55 PM To: Ouriel, Boaz Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ouriel, Boaz <boaz.ouriel at intel.com<mailto:boaz.ouriel at intel.com>> wrote: Hey

Hi All, In continuation of the previous SPIR introduction email here is a link to the specification: http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/specs/spir_spec-1.0-provisional.pdf The first topic which we would like to discuss is "SPIR portability". I will send soon an additional mail which will help in leading the discussion on this topic. Thanks and happy reading, Boaz -----Original

Hi Boaz, Micah, Thanks for the followup. > I agree with Micah that optimizing a SPIR module might make it less portable. > However, SPIR doesn't prohibit optimizations. It is up to the OpenCL optimizer to decide when to "materialize" SPIR to a device specific LLVM module or even convert it to another IR. > It would be useful if we could identify areas in the specification

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] *On > Behalf Of *Richard Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:55 PM > *To:* Ouriel, Boaz > *Cc:* cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > *Subject:* Re:

Hi Boaz, I have a couple of specific questions: (a) You mention special calling conventions and adding them to LLVM. What are their semantics? And what is their purpose? (b) Why disallow type conversion for vector types? (ss. 3.3) Cheers, James On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 12:56 +0100, Ouriel, Boaz wrote: > Hi All, > > In continuation of the previous SPIR introduction email here is a link

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of James Molloy > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:49 AM > To: Ouriel, Boaz > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] SPIR provisional specifciation is now available > in the Khronos website > > Hi Boaz, >

Hi, I want to set up SaMBa PDC and BDC with LDAP. I read the TOSHARG2, but don't understand something: >Samba-3 cannot participate in true SAM replication and is therefore not able to employ >precisely the same protocols used by MS Windows NT4. A Samba-3 BDC will not create >SAM update delta files. Ok, I understand until that, but: >It will not interoperate with a PDC (NT4 or

People, I have one PDC and a BDC on the matrix side and two BDCs on the branch office. I don't know if it is a problem. Anybody could help me? PDC # net rpc testjoin get_schannel_session_key: could not fetch trust account password for domain 'DOMAIN_NAME' net_rpc_join_ok: failed to get schannel session key from server PDC for domain DOMAIN_NAME. Error was