similar to: Page fault is 4 times faster with XI shadow mechanism

Hi, Robert, I found out another confusing code snippet: in void xi_invl_mfn(struct domain *d, unsigned long mfn) if (ext && pfn < ext->large_page_aligned_size) According to the code, it should be if (ext && (pfn>>SPT_ENTRIES_ORDER) < ext->large_page_aligned_size) If I made any mistake, please point it out.

Page tables on nv50 take 48kB, which can be hard to allocate in one piece. Let's use vmalloc. Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org [3.7+] --- drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/vm/base.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/vm/base.c

When I list a directory within the linux OS, appears like this: ... -rwxr--r--. 1 root pgt.cxt 7,2K Nov 25 14:33 New Text OpenDocument.odt ... At smb.conf is of this way: [global] workgroup = PGT server string = Descricao security = DOMAIN obey pam restrictions = Yes ... registry shares = Yes idmap uid = 1000-20000 idmap gid = 1000-20000

On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 11:02 +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > index 5c7433d..c314a5f 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/engine/fifo/nv40.c > > @@ -190,8 +190,8 @@

On Thu, 2013-08-29 at 16:49 +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote: > > Additionally the current code is broken in that the upper layer in > > vm/base.c doesn't increment "pte" by the right amount. > > > > Now, if those two assertions can be made always true: > > > > - Those two functions (map_sg and map_sg_table) never deal with the > > "big"

On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 17:06 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > I think I found at least two cases where "12" was used where it should > have been PAGE_SHIFT (basically ttm_mem_reg->num_pages). This > is only the tip of the iceberg, so this isn't a formal patch submission, > but I would appreciate your thought as to whether the below is correct > (and thus

On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at nvidia.com> wrote: > Adapt the NVC0 BAR driver to make it able to support chips that do not > expose a BAR3. When this happens, BAR1 is then used for USERD mapping > and the BAR alloc() functions is disabled, making GPU objects unable > to rely on BAR for data access and falling back to PRAMIN. > >

On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 09:59 +1300, Garming Sam via samba wrote: > Can you provide a bit more logs? At first glance, it doesn't seem quite > related to group memberships. > I agree, we need more logs here. Turn up the log level and see what the error causing that final error is.   However, take care not to publish confidential details like staff names and sensitive attributes like

On Mon, 2017-10-16 at 13:07 +0000, Andrej Gessel via samba wrote: > Hello list, > > maybe I saw the same error with backlinks. I try to use Samba 4.7.0 as rodc and perform join with "domain-critical-only"-option. Smb.conf is generated by samba. After starting joined samba I got error like this: Does it change if you don't use that option? > Failed to apply records:

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:24:44PM +0100, Achim Gottinger via samba wrote: > Am 22.01.2018 um 10:49 schrieb Stefan Metzmacher via samba: > > Also DO NOT repair the following errors with samba-tool dbcheck! > > "Remove duplicate links in attribute" > > and > > "ERROR: orphaned backlink" > > as this removes the ability to repair the database >

Op 11-08-13 07:36, Benjamin Herrenschmidt schreef: > On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 10:41 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> Now, to do that, I need a better understanding of the various things >> in there since I'm not familiar with nouveau at all. What I think I've >> figured out is with a few questions, it would be awesome if you could >> answer them so I can have

On Thu, 2017-11-02 at 15:56 +0100, Denis Cardon via samba wrote: > Hi Samba team and Maxence, > > > last week we updated three domain controllers (Sernet Samba) from 4.2 to > > 4.7, typical upgrade path (4.3->4.4->4.5->4.6->4.7), everything was ok. > > > > The next day we got a mail from the Sernet team informing they fixed a > > bug affecting the

Hi folks ! So I've been trying to figure out what it would take to make nouveau work properly on architectures where PAGE_SIZE isn't 4k such as most ppc64's. An initial patch from Dave fixed a bogon in nv41.c nv41_vm_map_sg() which was trying to handle the case at that low level, but this isn't enough, and after a bit of digging, I also think that's not the right approach:

Hello last week we updated three domain controllers (Sernet Samba) from 4.2 to 4.7, typical upgrade path (4.3->4.4->4.5->4.6->4.7), everything was ok. The next day we got a mail from the Sernet team informing they fixed a bug affecting the group memberships. https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13095 We've applied the update and few days after the update which should

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="content-type"> <title>250K</title> </head> <body> <div style="text-align: center;"><span dir="rtl"> Do you want to boost your blog in

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 09:59:47 +1300 Garming Sam via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Can you provide a bit more logs? At first glance, it doesn't seem > quite related to group memberships. > > > Cheers, > > Garming > > On 29/09/17 22:07, gizmo via samba wrote: > > Hallo, > > we have 5 ADDCs. All of them did run with sernet-samba 4.6.7.

Hallo, we have 5 ADDCs. All of them did run with sernet-samba 4.6.7. I updated 4 of them to sernet-samba 4.7.0, one after the other, checked replication, everything seemed to be ok. One day later a colleague wanted to delete a lot of users with a powershell-script and since then the replication doesnt work anymore. (Im sure the script is not the problem, but it seemes like it triggered something)

Op 05-03-13 19:57, Marcin Slusarz schreef: > Page tables on nv50 take 48kB, which can be hard to allocate in one piece. > Let's use vmalloc. > > Signed-off-by: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz at gmail.com> > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org [3.7+] > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/core/subdev/vm/base.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >

Commit 'drm/nv50-nvc0/vm: support unsnooped system memory' caused a regression on certain nv50 IGP due to not passing the correct target type to nv50_vm_addr() Fixes: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45746 Reported-by: Johannes Obermayr <johannesobermayr at gmx.de> Tested-by: Johannes Obermayr <johannesobermayr at gmx.de> Signed-off-by: Emil Velikov

Op 11-08-13 10:04, Benjamin Herrenschmidt schreef: > On Sun, 2013-08-11 at 17:06 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > >> I think I found at least two cases where "12" was used where it should >> have been PAGE_SHIFT (basically ttm_mem_reg->num_pages). This >> is only the tip of the iceberg, so this isn't a formal patch submission, >> but I would