RE: [parisc-linux] Booting 2.6
Thanks Grant,
I made it 1/boot/initrd.img and I deleted the initrd=/boot/initrd.img line.
Same result.
My root is still sda3, but it looks to me like it's not mounted when 2.6
gets to the kernel panic. That's why I think I need a ramdisk to get the
standard 2.6 kernel booted. All I have to work with is ash, and I can't see
my /boot (sda1) when I boot off of the cd. Is there any work around you can
think of?
Thanks again,
Harry
Best regards,
Harry
-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Grundler [mailto:grundler@parisc-linux.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:41 PM
To: Harry Cochran
Cc: parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Booting 2.6
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Harry Cochran wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the newbie question, but I'm trying to boot 2.6 and I don't
quite
> understand how to set up the "root=" for it.
The name of the root disk might have changed IFF you have more
than one disk installed/connected to the system.
Look through console output
>
> My palo.conf says:
> --command line=1/boot/vmlinux root=/dev/sda3 HOME=/ initrd=/initrd.img
I expect this needs to say:
initrd=1/boot/initrd.img
I personally like to point palo/elilo/lilo directly
at the file to load by default (and not a symlink).
> console=tys0 TERM=vt102
> --recoverykernel=/boot/vmlinux
> --init-partitioned=/dev/sda
>
> Here's what my palo.conf generates on boot right now:
>
> 0 1/boot/vmlinux
> 1 root=/dev/sda3
> 2 HOME=/
> 3 initrd=/initrd.img
> 4 console=ttys0
> 5 TERM=vt102
>
> On boot I get:
>
> cannot open root device "sda3" or unknownblock(2.0)
Well, if the kernel expects devfs mounted or something else,
then you have to sort out which /dev files are needed.
I suspect more likely either the sym53c8xx driver didn't get
loaded (no initrd found possibly) or more than one disk
is installed and the device name changed.
> Please append a correct "root=" boot option
> Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs or unknown-block(2.0)
>
> I have seen one document which says I have to build a ramdisk, but it
> doesn't tell me how.
mkinitrd is the command you are looking for. But I don't use an
initrd on my boxes since I'm building my own kernels. The initrd
is most useful for generic kernel builds where one wants every
possible driver available as a potential root device. Since I
build my own kernels and know which drivers are needed for root,
I don't really need an initrd.
? What's worse is that I can't get 2.4.26 to boot again
> even though I have a symlink (vmlinux.old) to it. I tried changing line 0
to
> 1/boot/vmlinux.old, but it still boots 2.6.8. I even tried inserting a
line
> saying recoverykernel=/boot/vmlinux.old but that didn't help.
>
> Sounds easy ... just go to 2.6 (the solution to a problem I'm trying to
> implement), but for this newbie, it's anything but.
*nod*
Here's my palo.conf:
ioz:~# cat /etc/palo.conf
--commandline=0/vmlinux-2.6.11-rc2-pa3-UP root=/dev/sda3 panic=5
console=ttyS1
--format-as=2
--update-partitioned=/dev/sda
[ I've also added "noudev" to the commandline on some of the machines. ]
ioz:~# fdisk -l /dev/sda
ioctl32(fdisk:4277): Unknown cmd fd(4) cmd(40081272){00} arg(faf005f0) on
/dev/sda
Disk /dev/sda: 73.4 GB, 73407865856 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 8924 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/sda1 * 1 24 192748+ f0 Linux/PA-RISC boot
/dev/sda2 25 148 996030 82 Linux swap
/dev/sda3 149 2140 16000740 83 Linux
/dev/sda4 2141 8924 54492480 83 Linux
ioz:~# mount
/dev/sda3 on / type ext3 (rw,errors=remount-ro)
proc on /proc type proc (rw)
sysfs on /sys type sysfs (rw)
devpts on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,gid=5,mode=620)
tmpfs on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
/dev/sda1 on /boot type ext2 (rw)
/dev/sda4 on /home type ext3 (rw)
I hope the above should get you on the right track.
>
> Please help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Harry
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> parisc-linux mailing list
> parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org
> http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Reply to: