2.4.7 kernel boot hangs with "cramfs: wrong magic"
oop! -- I corrected a few incorrect details in my prior message
regarding the results of 2.4.7 boot partitions check and contents of my
lilo.conf file.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to get a 2.4.7 kernel to boot. My PC
has a AMD-K6-II and runs woody. My most recent attempt used the kernel
image is from kernel-image-2.4.7-k6_2.4.7-1.i386.deb. The boot sequence
runs until the hard disk partition check and then hangs. The final part
of the boot post is:
Partition check:
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0: [EZD] [remap 0->1] [700/255/63] p1 p2
<p5>
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target1/lun0: [PTBL] [2491/255/63] p1 p2 p3 p4 <p5
p6 p7>
cramfs: wrong magic
VFS: Mounted root (est2 filesystem) readonly
change-root: old root has d_count=2
Freeing unused kernel memory: 184k freed
The boot hangs at this point. Sometimes is hangs at the line "cramfs:
wrong magic"
When I boot with my 2.2.19 kernel, partition check reports:
hda: [EZD] [remap 0->1] [700/255/63] hda1 hda2 < hda5 >
hdb: hdb1 hdb2 hdb3 hdb4 < hdb5 hdb6 hdb7 >
Is it normal for a 2.4.x kernels to report partitions as p1, p2, etc.
vice hda1, hda2, hdb1, etc? What does "cramfs: wrong magic" mean, and
does anyone have suggestions on how to fix this problem?
My lilo.conf is:
lba32
boot=/dev/hda
root=/dev/hdb2
install=/boot/boot.b
map=/boot/map
message=/boot/bootmess.txt
prompt
single-key
delay=20
timeout=100
vga=normal
append="hdc=ide-scsi"
default=linux-2.2.19
image=/vmlinuz-2.2.19
label=linux-2.2.19
read-only
alias=1
image=/vmlinuz
label=linux
read-only
initrd=/boot/initrd
alias=2
#other is Windows98 boot partition
other=/dev/hda1
label=dos
alias=3
/boot/initrd is linked to /boot/initrd-2.4.7-k6. /vmlinuz is linked to
/boot/vmlinuz-2.4.7-k6
hda contain a Windows 98 installation and fat32 partitions.
hdb are my linux partitions
hdc is a HP Colorado 8GB tape drive.
hdd is CDROM
The PC also has an Adaptec AHA2940 scsi adaptor that currently connects
to my zip drive.
Any ideas and suggestions would be appreciated. thanks.
--
Jerome
Reply to: