Bug 247289
Summary: | firefox: lots of wakeups, according to powertop | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Need Real Name <lsof> |
Component: | firefox | Assignee: | Christopher Aillon <caillon> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 7 | CC: | gecko-bugs-nobody, kengert, mcepl |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | firefox-2.0.0.5-1.fc7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-09-19 01:31:40 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Need Real Name
2007-07-06 18:02:50 UTC
I believe this is http://www.linuxpowertop.org/known.php#firefox which is actually a bug in nspr. The issue that caillons points us to is actually in the Mozilla application code (not nspr, not nss). The fix has been picked up for the upcoming next version of Firefox (2.0.0.5, release date unknown). If you would like to test earlier, you could download and run the latest nightly 1.8 branch build of Firefox (not available as rpm). Ah, so it is. I saw a bunch of PR_* stuff listed in the bug and incorrectly made the assumption it was nspr. (In reply to comment #2) > The fix has been picked up for the upcoming next version of Firefox (2.0.0.5, > release date unknown). > > If you would like to test earlier, you could download and run the latest nightly > 1.8 branch build of Firefox (not available as rpm). Wait a minute, the patch is approved, but not yet checked in. I will land it into upstream Mozilla today, so please wait 1-2 days before you do the above and test. Thanks! WFM I think - thanks! I think that by any stretch of imagination this bug could be considered NEW. Kai, should it be ASSIGNed to you or to caillon? (In reply to comment #6) > I think that by any stretch of imagination this bug could be considered NEW. Not sure why you say it's NEW. According to comment 5 the bug is confirmed fixed in Firefox 2.0.0.5. I'll reassign this bug to the firefox component and mark it fixed. |