Bug 1283648
| Summary: | Update cpupowerutils to upstream | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Jacob Tanenbaum <jtanenba> | |
| Component: | cpupowerutils | Assignee: | Jacob Tanenbaum <jtanenba> | |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Erik Hamera <ehamera> | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | unspecified | |||
| Version: | 6.8 | CC: | ehamera, jtanenba, nhorman, prarit | |
| Target Milestone: | rc | |||
| Target Release: | --- | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Linux | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 1298255 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2016-05-10 20:29:13 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: | 1298255 | |||
| Bug Blocks: | ||||
|
Description
Jacob Tanenbaum
2015-11-19 14:02:40 UTC
There is cpupower 2.6.32 from package cpupowerutils-1.3-1.el6.x86_64 in 6.8. Is that updated enough? There is kernel 2.6.32-621.el6.x86_64, so yes I think. On the other hand the newest code is cpupowerutils from kernel 4.2 obviously. The question is - from my point of view - if we want to mix old kernel and new cpupowerutils. If it will work together, we can say, that the newer is better (less bugs and more features). But is proper functionality guaranteed/wanted from upstream? If not, I'm inclining to use the same version like version of kernel is. Hi jtaneba, is possible to use the newer cpupowerutils than kernel, or is right when versions of cpupowerutils and kernel are the same? No reply to my question in c7. It seems, that the code in ftp://porkchop.devel.redhat.com/mnt/redhat/released/RHEL-6/6.8-Beta/Server/source/SRPMS/cpupowerutils-1.3-1.el6.src.rpm is the same as the code in https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/kernel/cpufreq/cpufrequtils-008.tar.xz . Diff is pretty big (over 6k lines), but it changes formatting of code, content of printf()s and things like that mostly (no, I haven't read it character by character). The newest file in upstream is from 7 Jun 2015 and last update in srpm's spec file is from 19 Jan 2016. Based on data available to me I think we have most current upstream code. If anyone think I'm wrong, prove it please and put this bug back to QE. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016-0785.html |