On 27/08/2010 09:28, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 19:50, Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de wrote:
wpa_supplicant doesn't create the pidfile if the target directory
does not exist. Because /var/run is wiped with every boot I added
the following line to my rc.local to
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:36, Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de wrote:
On 27/08/2010 09:28, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 19:50, Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de wrote:
wpa_supplicant doesn't create the pidfile if the target directory
does not exist. Because /var/run
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 19:50, Dominic Fandrey kamik...@bsdforen.de wrote:
wpa_supplicant doesn't create the pidfile if the target directory
does not exist. Because /var/run is wiped with every boot I added
the following line to my rc.local to workaround this issue:
/bin/mkdir -p
offtopic, but why do some mailers replace a CNAME in a mail-address?
r...@sheeva2:/var/vmail# host klop.yi.org
klop.yi.org CNAME thuis.klop.ws
thuis.klop.ws A 212.123.145.58
It is not the first time that I'm bitten by this, but I never understood
it.
Ronald.
In message op.vh27cqoy852...@212-123-145-58.ip.telfort.nl, Ronald Klop writ
es:
offtopic, but why do some mailers replace a CNAME in a mail-address?
Because it used to be manditory to do so. If you don't want it to
be done use a MX record.
klop.yi.org MX 0 thuis.klop.ws
If you need
Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it
mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it.
I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but the
person who made it 'mandatory' will have good reasons for it.
Does somebody have a pointer to the specs
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:22:05AM +0200, Ronald Klop wrote:
Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it
mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it.
I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but
the person who made it 'mandatory' will have good
Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it
mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it.
I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but the
person who made it 'mandatory' will have good reasons for it.
Rewiting may not be mandatory, but it is
Am 27.08.2010 11:22, schrieb Ronald Klop:
Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it
mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it.
I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but the
person who made it 'mandatory' will have good reasons for it.
Jack Vogel wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com mailto:free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:56:48PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
CC'ing Jack Vogel of Intel and Yong-Hyeon
Does the recipient MTA actually receive for both klop.yi.org *and*
thuis.klop.ws? The recipient MTA will dereference the CNAME and rewrite the
envelope for the reason that it can only relay to an RR that points to a
real host.
You might be able to fix it if you configure the mta on thuis.klop.ws
hi,
I can't seem to find how to manually remap uid gid information while
using NFS, e.g. something similar to this:
http://www.kernelcrash.com/blog/nfs-uidgid-mapping/2007/09/10/
Is such mapping really unimplemented?
Except for root or all uids, no. There is no generic mapping
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Philipp Wuensche cryx-free...@h3q.comwrote:
Jack Vogel wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com mailto:free...@jdc.parodius.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:56:48PM +0200, Philipp Wuensche wrote:
On 08/27/2010 01:03 AM, Ronald Klop wrote:
offtopic, but why do some mailers replace a CNAME in a mail-address?
r...@sheeva2:/var/vmail# host klop.yi.org
klop.yi.org CNAME thuis.klop.ws
thuis.klop.ws A 212.123.145.58
It is not the first time that I'm bitten by this, but I never understood
it.
on 19/08/2010 20:26 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
One thing I am not sure is whether those CPUID instructions are
executed on *real* CPUs or translated in HVM. On top of that, I am
not even sure they will be executed on *correct* cores. I bet they
won't.
Hmm, I have an impression that
On Friday 27 August 2010 01:33 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 19/08/2010 20:26 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
One thing I am not sure is whether those CPUID instructions are
executed on *real* CPUs or translated in HVM. On top of that, I
am not even sure they will be executed on *correct*
on 27/08/2010 22:36 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Now, back to my original question. My point was, we should never
trust any CPUIDs on emulated CPU if they are translated. What should
happen if you have four physical cores and you assign just one for
VirtualBox, for example? What
Jack Vogel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Philipp Wuensche cryx-free...@h3q.com
mailto:cryx-free...@h3q.com wrote:
Jack Vogel wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
free...@jdc.parodius.com mailto:free...@jdc.parodius.com
On Friday 27 August 2010 03:47 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 27/08/2010 22:36 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Now, back to my original question. My point was, we should never
trust any CPUIDs on emulated CPU if they are translated. What
should happen if you have four physical cores and you
On 19 August 2010 20:56, pluknet pluk...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 August 2010 20:39, Andriy Gapon a...@icyb.net.ua wrote:
on 10/08/2010 19:55 pluknet said the following:
On 16 July 2010 19:47, Jung-uk Kim j...@freebsd.org wrote:
The patch should apply fine on both sys/amd64/amd64/mp_machdep.c
on 27/08/2010 23:15 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
I quickly looked over Xen sources. It seems the CPUID instruction is
translated by this code:
http://lxr.xensource.com/lxr/source/tools/libxc/xc_cpuid_x86.c
For HVM case, this is how the CPUID_HTT_CORES is set:
185 case
on 27/08/2010 23:18 pluknet said the following:
First, sorry for late replay, and thanks Andriy for kicking me ;)
Something really weird there .
topo_probe_0xb() falls early on 1st iteration back to topo_probe_0x4().
topo_probe_0x4() returns incorrect data as well.
topo_probe: cpu_high =
On Friday 27 August 2010 05:25 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 27/08/2010 23:18 pluknet said the following:
First, sorry for late replay, and thanks Andriy for kicking me ;)
Something really weird there .
topo_probe_0xb() falls early on 1st iteration back to
topo_probe_0x4().
on 28/08/2010 00:43 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Things like that probably do not happen with real hardware much,
but they could.
AFAIK, it never happened on a real hardware.
The only way to deal with this is by following the correct procedure
instead of making assumptions based on
On Friday 27 August 2010 04:19 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
I still don't get your point.
My point is that if the Intel's code gets the topology right, then
the hardware is emulated properly and the problem is with the
patch.
What is your point? :)
My point is right topology means nothing in this
on 28/08/2010 01:03 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
On Friday 27 August 2010 04:19 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
I still don't get your point.
My point is that if the Intel's code gets the topology right, then
the hardware is emulated properly and the problem is with the
patch.
What is your point?
On Friday 27 August 2010 06:02 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/08/2010 00:43 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Things like that probably do not happen with real hardware much,
but they could.
AFAIK, it never happened on a real hardware.
The only way to deal with this is by following the
on 28/08/2010 01:33 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
If you are really up to this, it has to be a two-pass process. Even
then, the dmesg won't be pretty because the topology can only be
announced after all APs have been started. I mean, nobody's going
to like to see a message like this
On Friday 27 August 2010 06:46 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
on 28/08/2010 01:33 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
Also, don't forget jhb's work based on ACPI affinity tables.
Not sure how they are applicable here.
Only SRAT is implemented ATM but SLIT should provide CPU affinity
information
On 27 Aug, Ronald Klop wrote:
Mandatory? I'm googling, but can't find a document that declares it
mandatory and only sendmail seems to do it.
I think it is lame to use DNS info to rewrite e-mail addresses, but the
person who made it 'mandatory' will have good reasons for it.
Does
30 matches
Mail list logo
