Bug 1097929
| Summary: | [RFE] QEMU/KVM: ACPI-based cpu hot-unplug support | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Karen Noel <knoel> | |
| Component: | qemu-kvm-rhev | Assignee: | Igor Mammedov <imammedo> | |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs> | |
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | urgent | |||
| Version: | 7.1 | CC: | bmcclain, cww, drjones, hhuang, huding, iheim, imammedo, juzhang, knoel, lpeer, mavital, michen, mkalinin, mtessun, pkrempa, platform-rfe, rbalakri, sfroemer, sherold, srevivo, virt-maint, xfu, yjog | |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | FutureFeature | |
| Target Release: | 7.3 | |||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | |||
| OS: | All | |||
| Whiteboard: | virt | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | ||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | RHEV_HOT_UNPLUG_CPU | |||
| : | 1097930 1146944 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-08-09 14:02:06 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
| Embargoed: | ||||
| Bug Depends On: | 1087672 | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 851497, 918283, 1097589, 1097930, 1099775, 1105185, 1110708, 1113520, 1134765, 1146944, 1167336, 1167392, 1172230, 1191019, 1203710, 1205796, 1288337, 1289173 | |||
|
Comment 3
Scott Herold
2015-03-31 14:22:15 UTC
*** Bug 918282 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** As we have (again) a Conditional NAK upstream, is there any possibility to really get this done with RHEL 7.3? We slowly lose credibility with the customer, as this feature was promised with RHEL 7.0 first, was delayed several times and was promised to be included in RHEL 7.3 latest. This does not look to be the truth. In case I tell VWFS that again no ACPI based hotunplug of CPUs is available, they will really lose the rest of their trust in getting this feature at all, and will most probably start looking at different solutions then as well. Any comments on the timeframe? Thanks, Martin *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1087672 *** |