Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #229350 > unrolled thread

AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-05 15:30 +0100
    Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-12-05 18:10 +0100
      Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> - 2020-12-05 18:30 +0100
        Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2020-12-05 19:30 +0100
        Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-12-05 20:00 +0100
        Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-12-05 22:10 +0100
          Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-12-05 23:50 +0100
          Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 08:00 +0100
            Re: Replying Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2020-12-06 10:20 +0100
              Re: Replying Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 12:30 +0100
                Re: Replying rhkramer@gmail.com - 2020-12-06 13:10 +0100
                  Re: Replying Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 13:20 +0100
                Re: Replying Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2020-12-06 14:50 +0100
                  Re: Replying Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 15:40 +0100
                    Re: Replying Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2020-12-06 16:00 +0100
                      Re: Replying Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-06 20:00 +0100
                        Re: Replying Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> - 2020-12-06 21:50 +0100
              Re: Replying Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2020-12-07 15:50 +0100
          Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-12-08 21:20 +0100
            Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-12-09 01:30 +0100
              Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 01:50 +0100
                Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-12-09 02:00 +0100
                  Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 02:40 +0100
                    Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2020-12-09 09:20 +0100
                      Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> - 2020-12-09 19:20 +0100
      Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-11 21:20 +0100
        Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem] Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2020-12-11 22:10 +0100
    Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-12-05 22:30 +0100
      Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-06 23:20 +0100
        Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-12-11 23:20 +0100
          Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 17:30 +0100
            Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 20:00 +0100
              Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-26 21:40 +0100
            Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2020-12-12 20:40 +0100
              Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> - 2020-12-26 21:50 +0100
            Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-12-13 00:50 +0100
        Re: AMD GPU ^H^H^HSea Southern Islands Problem Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2020-12-13 01:00 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#229350 — AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello debian-users,

Whenever I try to do any form rendering using the dGPU, the software 
just hangs and become inresponsive. My kernel based on `uname -v` is '#1 
SMP Debian 5.9.9-1 (2020-11-19)'.

Also, I have no idea how to reply to a thread on a mailing list so it 
would be practical if you teach me how. I use Gmail. I even installed 
Thunderbird as according to Debian Wiki on Mailing Lists but still no 
idea how to reply to people.

I tried using `sudo dmesg | grep -E 'radeon'` to see what is wrong and 
this is what it shows:

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#229356 — Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 14:11:02 +0000
Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, I have no idea how to reply to a thread on a mailing list so it 
> would be practical if you teach me how. I use Gmail. I even installed 
> Thunderbird as according to Debian Wiki on Mailing Lists but still no 
> idea how to reply to people.

Exactly how you reply to a thread depends on your mail reader. In
general, just reply to an appropriate email in a thread. Control-R is a
common shortcut for the purpose. Your mail reader should pick up the
information necessary so the rest of us will see your reply as part of
the thread.

Two thoughts on netiquette...

Trim the text to which you are replying. Get rid of text not
immediately relevant to your reply. Gmail hides that for you, so you
don't see it. Other mail readers don't hide it. I did so above.

You put two separate subjects (your GPU problem and replying) into the
same email. This means that replies to the two separate subjects will be
interlaced, to everyone's confusion. A partial remedy is for a
responder to change the subject line as appropriate, but even that has
problems. A better approach is to start with a separate email for each
subject.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229357 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, Dec 5, 2020, 12:05 PM Charles Curley <
charlescurley@charlescurley.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 14:11:02 +0000
> Guyenne Tsui <guyenne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, I have no idea how to reply to a thread on a mailing list so it
> > would be practical if you teach me how. I use Gmail. I even installed
> > Thunderbird as according to Debian Wiki on Mailing Lists but still no
> > idea how to reply to people.
>
> Exactly how you reply to a thread depends on your mail reader. In
> general, just reply to an appropriate email in a thread. Control-R is a
> common shortcut for the purpose. Your mail reader should pick up the
> information necessary so the rest of us will see your reply as part of
> the thread.
>
> Two thoughts on netiquette...
>
> Trim the text to which you are replying. Get rid of text not
> immediately relevant to your reply. Gmail hides that for you, so you
> don't see it. Other mail readers don't hide it. I did so above.
>
> You put two separate subjects (your GPU problem and replying) into the
> same email. This means that replies to the two separate subjects will be
> interlaced, to everyone's confusion. A partial remedy is for a
> responder to change the subject line as appropriate, but even that has
> problems. A better approach is to start with a separate email for each
> subject.
>

I am also on Gmail.  When I click (or tap) on Reply, it invariably wants me
to send the Reply to the individual who sent the email, as opposed to the
Debian Users List.  So one additional task for me is to edit the "To"
field, so that it specifically goes to the List.

Is this, generally an Issue, or is it specific to Gmail?

-- 
> Does anybody read signatures any more?
>

Occasionally.  :-)

https://charlescurley.com
> https://charlescurley.com/blog/


Thanks!

Kenneth Parker

>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229359 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 12:20 -0500, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> I am also on Gmail.  When I click (or tap) on Reply, it invariably wants me
> to send the Reply to the individual who sent the email, as opposed to the
> Debian Users List.  So one additional task for me is to edit the "To"
> field, so that it specifically goes to the List.
> 
> Is this, generally an Issue, or is it specific to Gmail?

It's probably more a general issue. But how these things are handled
will be down to the program or web interface you are using to access
your mail, not the email service. The email program I use has two
options, reply to sender (Ctrl+R) and reply to list (CTrl+L). I'm sure
that would work with Gmail if I used that for my email service, but if
you use the Gmail web interface, or another email program, they may not
have a reply-to-list option.

-- 
Tixy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229361 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 12:20:02 -0500
Kenneth Parker <sea7kenp@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am also on Gmail.  When I click (or tap) on Reply, it invariably
> wants me to send the Reply to the individual who sent the email, as
> opposed to the Debian Users List.  So one additional task for me is
> to edit the "To" field, so that it specifically goes to the List.
>
> Is this, generally an Issue, or is it specific to Gmail?

It can be an issue on other mail readers as well. Many will let you
configure that. Claws-mail will even let you configure it on a
per-directory basis.

Claws-mail also has menu entries for reply to sender, all, and mailing
list.


-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229370 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sb, 05 dec 20, 12:20:02, Kenneth Parker wrote:
> 
> I am also on Gmail.  When I click (or tap) on Reply, it invariably wants me
> to send the Reply to the individual who sent the email, as opposed to the
> Debian Users List.  So one additional task for me is to edit the "To"
> field, so that it specifically goes to the List.
> 
> Is this, generally an Issue, or is it specific to Gmail?

In general 'Reply' defaults to Sender, with a few exceptions:

 1. A smart mailer that detects the message is from a mailing list, most 
 likely configurable (e.g. Claws Mail already mentioned, probably 
 Sylpheed as well)

 2. A Reply-To is set, either by the list[1] or by the Sender

(maybe others I forgot or am not aware of)

For mailing lists one should follow the rules and conventions of the 
corresponding list, e.g. on Debian lists replies should go to the list 
only, unless explicitly requested otherwise.

If your mail client doesn't properly support mailing lists one can 
either 'Reply' and replace the Sender's address with the list address or 
use 'Reply-to-All' and delete all unnecessary addresses.

[1] also known as reply-to munging

https://unicom.crosenthal.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229375 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Saturday, December 05, 2020 04:08:14 PM Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> In general 'Reply' defaults to Sender, with a few exceptions:
> 
>  1. A smart mailer that detects the message is from a mailing list, most
>  likely configurable (e.g. Claws Mail already mentioned, probably
>  Sylpheed as well)

and kmail (at least in the version in Wheezy ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229382 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 23:08:14 +0200
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Andrei,

> 2. A Reply-To is set, either by the list[1] or by the Sender

Even with one set, many ppl /still/ manage to not honour it.

I've lost count of the number of time replies have come to me only,
despite setting a list address for the Reply-To which survived any list
software processing.   :-(

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Keep your drink just give 'em the money
U & Ur Hand - P!nk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229384 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* 2020-12-05 21:33:58Z, Brad Rogers wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 23:08:14 +0200
> Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. A Reply-To is set, either by the list[1] or by the Sender
>
> Even with one set, many ppl /still/ manage to not honour it.

My email application (Notmuch) normally honours Reply-To but there is an
exception. If Reply-To is different from the From address and points the
same address as To or Cc address then use From address instead of
Reply-To.

There is sense in this. Reply means "reply to sender". If Reply-To has
the same address as in To/Cc then the Reply-To address probably is not
sender's address. So don't honour Reply-To and use From instead. It is
also a safe behaviour: a private message meant for the sender is not
accidentally sent to other people's addresses or to a public mailing
list.

I guess we all know by now that mail user agent software don't agree
with all the different semantics of replying. Widely supported features
are "reply to sender" (Reply-To, From) and "reply to all". Debian
mailing list policy (send only to list address) is not easy for many
mail user agents. "Reply to all" would be easier but we have to manage.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen - .-.. https://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/
// OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229385 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 11:14:25 +0200
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote:

Hello Teemu,

>There is sense in this. Reply means "reply to sender". If Reply-To has
>the same address as in To/Cc then the Reply-To address probably is not
>sender's address. So don't honour Reply-To and use From instead. It is
>also a safe behaviour: 

I set a Reply-To for mailing list mails because I *DO NOT WANT* a
private reply.  Your treatment of that is completely broken.  Credit the
sender with some intelligence, and do as they request.

If I wanted a private reply, I wouldn't have sent the message to the
list in the first place.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Keep your drink just give 'em the money
U & Ur Hand - P!nk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229386 — Re: Replying

On Sunday, December 06, 2020 06:23:06 AM Brad Rogers wrote:
> If I wanted a private reply, I wouldn't have sent the message to the
> list in the first place.

Hmm, I might send a public message and want a private reply (or at least, not 
be surprised if I got a private reply).

For instance, if I was asking questions about some potentially embarrassing 
subject (have you ever broken the law, violated the debian code of conduct, 
...) I would be surprised if anybody replied in the affirmative on a public mail 
list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229387 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 6 Dec 2020 07:01:46 -0500
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

Hello rhkramer@gmail.com,

>Hmm, I might send a public message and want a private reply 

Certainly there are people that do that, but I don't;
It's inviting an accident to happen.

If I'm following up on a list mail privately (it's rare, but I do so on
occasion), I stress up front that the message is off-list and any reply
should be, too.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
Well I don't want you to think I'm being obscene
Fish - The Damned

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229388 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* 2020-12-06 11:23:06Z, Brad Rogers wrote:

> I set a Reply-To for mailing list mails because I *DO NOT WANT* a
> private reply. Your treatment of that is completely broken. Credit the
> sender with some intelligence, and do as they request.

It's not broken; it's perfectly valid and allowed. Reply-To field is
message author's suggestion (not a request) where replies be sent. (See
RFC 5322 or older 2822.)

With Reply-To you certainly can suggest that people send replies to a
mailing list or any other place. Other people can treat such suggestions
any way they want. None of these are "broken"; they are valid behaviour
(as in RFC).

I think that I made service to you by telling how Notmuch's "reply to
sender" (notmuch reply --reply-to=sender) interprets Reply-To in
replies. Maybe some other mail user agents have similar interpretation.
That is perfectly valid interpretation and behaviour. This could help
you understand why you sometimes get private replies.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen - .-.. https://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/
// OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229389 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 15:42:49 +0200
Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote:

Hello Teemu,

>It's not broken; it's perfectly valid and allowed.

My mistake;  I didn't mean broken in the non-RFC compliant sense, but
broken in the sense of "Not what I want to take place".  I set a
Reply-To because that's where I want the reply to go.  If I want to take
things elsewhere, it's up to me to change headers used, etc. so the reply
goes to the correct place.

To *deliberately* not comply with somebody's request(1) is a failure(2).
One that will, in my little corner of the universe, land the perpetrator
in a kill-file.  Failing to comply without adequate (in my view)
justification will land them in that kill-file a good deal sooner.

(1) So long as those wishes affect only the person(s) directly involved.
For example, should a request require ppl to top-post their replies to
posts on a list where interpolated posting is the norm and rightly, the
respondent should decline and, possibly, do their own kill-filing.

(2) Mistakes do happen, so I usually give people a couple of chances.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
It's becoming an obsession
Teenage Depression - Eddie & The Hot Rods

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229390 — Re: Replying

> My mistake;  I didn't mean broken in the non-RFC compliant sense, but
> broken in the sense of "Not what I want to take place".  I set a

The problem is that you intend your "Reply-To:" to mean one thing, but
other people use "Reply-To:" to mean something else (many use it
without knowing what they want it to mean, really :-( ), so the MUA that
needs to compose the reply won't be able to do what was intended without
extra-sensory-perception.

I think a more useful setting would be one that says "don't include me
in replies to list foo because I'm subscribed to the list and will get
the reply anyway".  Or more generally some set of "email address
inclusions", like "brad@fineby.me.uk ⊂ debian-user@lists.debian.org".
I think/hope this would not be as prone to misinterpretation.


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229394 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 06 Dec 2020 09:49:41 -0500
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

Hello Stefan,

>The problem is that you intend your "Reply-To:" to mean one thing, but
>other people use "Reply-To:" to mean something else (many use it

I'm struggling to think of any use other than 'use the address in the 
Reply-To header to ensure you send your message to the correct place'.  I
will concede that ppl may interpret that as 'in addition to' (although,
IMO, that is incorrect) 'some@other.address' but nobody should ignore
the Reply-To and send *only* to the From address.

In snail mail, I regularly get letters from companies with an address to
reply to that is *not* the sending address.  If I ignore the correct
address and send my reply to the originating address, my mail will, at
best, be delayed, at worst, binned.  Same principles apply to email.  Or
at least, /should/.

>without knowing what they want it to mean, really :-( ), so

That, I can believe.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
This is the fifty first state of the USA
Heartland - The The

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229399 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

* 2020-12-06 16:39:29Z, Brad Rogers wrote:

> I'm struggling to think of any use other than 'use the address in the
> Reply-To header to ensure you send your message to the correct place'.

That's easy. Reply-To may not have the address which some other person
thinks is the correct place for his or her needs.

Here's an example:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20201206163715.trb5pxdd67xcauf5@mraw.org

That message was sent to different mailing lists and it has:

    Reply-To: debian-boot@lists.debian.org

Some people may want to send their reply to that address (debian-boot).
Some may prefer debian-accessibility list because they are going to talk
about accessibility matters. Some people may want to reply privately to
the sender (From) because they have points to make privately.

The original author suggests that the discussion continues on
debian-boot but it's just that, a suggestion. Other people decide what
is right for them.

> [...] but nobody should ignore the Reply-To and send *only* to the
> From address.

In distributed system like email we can only control what we send
ourselves. Other people do their own decisions. There are valid reasons
to ignore Reply-To and reply only to sender's From address.

-- 
/// Teemu Likonen - .-.. https://www.iki.fi/tlikonen/
// OpenPGP: 4E1055DC84E9DFF613D78557719D69D324539450

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229415 — Re: Replying

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 3:14 AM Teemu Likonen <tlikonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> I guess we all know by now that mail user agent software don't agree
> with all the different semantics of replying. Widely supported features
> are "reply to sender" (Reply-To, From) and "reply to all". Debian
> mailing list policy (send only to list address) is not easy for many
> mail user agents. "Reply to all" would be easier but we have to manage.
>

Omission of reply-to-list as a core feature is worthy of a bug report.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229488 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 23:08:14 +0200
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> In general 'Reply' defaults to Sender, with a few exceptions:
> 
>  1. A smart mailer that detects the message is from a mailing list, most 
>  likely configurable (e.g. Claws Mail already mentioned, probably 
>  Sylpheed as well)

On my Sylpheed, ordinary 'Reply' won't do reply-to-list, and I have to
specifically ask for that (<CTRL>-L by default). I couldn't find a
configuration option to change that, but I might have missed something.

Celejar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#229503 — Re: Replying. [was Re: AMD GPU Sea Islands Problem]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:10:13 -0500
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On my Sylpheed, ordinary 'Reply' won't do reply-to-list, and I have to
> specifically ask for that (<CTRL>-L by default). I couldn't find a
> configuration option to change that, but I might have missed
> something.

In Claws-Mail, you can do it on a per-folder basis. Get the address
to which you wish to reply into the clipboard. Select the folder, and
right click on it. Select Properties, then Compose. Check and fill out
"Default to:" and "Default To: Replies". This, of course, over-rides any
"Reply-To:" header.

That assumes you have a folder for each mailing list. If you don't,
they are easy enough to set up.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web