Bug 616099
Summary: | CPUScaling is not added automatically in V7 version 7-1.2-3. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Hardware Certification Program | Reporter: | chau nguyen <chau.nguyen2> |
Component: | Test Suite (harness) | Assignee: | Greg Nichols <gnichols> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Red Hat Kernel QE team <kernel-qe> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 5.3 | CC: | chau.nguyen2, gregg.shick, gwen.lapo, rlandry |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-11-19 15:42:44 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
chau nguyen
2010-07-19 16:33:46 UTC
Hi Chau, can you verify if this issue is addressed in v7-1.2-14? There are changes to the planning in the cpuscaling test which will impact this. Rob, Cpuscaling tests are showed in this version v7-1.2-14, but cpucaling tests are not in order in the test plan. For example: cpuscaling 0 acpi_CPU0 - cpuscaling 12 acpi_CPUC - cpuscaling 8 acpi_CPU8 - cpuscaling 20 acpi_CPU14 - cpuscaling 4 acpi_CPU4 - cpuscaling 16 acpi_CPU10 - cpuscaling 2 acpi_CPU2 - cpuscaling 14 acpi_CPUE - cpuscaling 10 acpi_CPUA - cpuscaling 22 acpi_CPU16 - cpuscaling 6 acpi_CPU6 - cpuscaling 18 acpi_CPU12 - cpuscaling 1 acpi_CPU1 - cpuscaling 13 acpi_CPUD - cpuscaling 9 acpi_CPU9 - cpuscaling 21 acpi_CPU15 - cpuscaling 5 acpi_CPU5 - cpuscaling 17 acpi_CPU11 - cpuscaling 3 acpi_CPU3 - cpuscaling 15 acpi_CPUF - cpuscaling 11 acpi_CPUB - cpuscaling 23 acpi_CPU17 - cpuscaling 7 acpi_CPU7 - cpuscaling 19 acpi_CPU13 - Hi Chau, fixing the ordering I think would be a different item. The way things are added to the plan is basically FIFO so the ordering could be anything. There was a change later in the v7-1.2 release cycle that added some ordering and may have an impact on the output in comment #2 but it wasn't meant specifically to address it. If desired we could close this and open another bug about ordering v7 print output? This issue can be close. Thank you |