[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#636123: linux-image-2.6.39-2-amd64: root filesystem (LVM) not recognised



Valentijn, this is very important:

please can you keep and make available the initrd that was generated
by initramfs-tools?

the file is going to be /boot/initrd.img-2.6.38-2-{insert_arch_name}

DO NOT attempt to "recover" the system right away (unless you take a
backup of /boot/initrg.img-2.6.38-2-{insert_arch_name} first)

right now you have a system which is "correctly faulty" and have
managed to make a repro-case for a bug which was first discovered two
weeks ago.

it is very very important, to determine the problem, that you make
available that (faulty) initrd.

are you able to upload it somewhere?  i can make available an ftp
server if you need one.

l.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> Valentijn Scholten wrote:
>
>> [Subject: Bug#636123: similar issue with 2.6.39.2 from backports]
>
> Please keep in mind that these appear as emails in a crowded inbox, so
> the subject line can be a good place to put valuable context.
>
> [...]
>> I was running a Debian Squeeze with 2.6.38.2 from backports. Was running
>> fine.
>>
>> I decided to install 2.6.39.2 from backports (apt-get install ...)
>>
>> It removed the old kernel and installed the new one.
>
> That already seems odd.  Why was the old kernel removed?  Does
> /var/log/apt/term.log say anything relevant?
>
>> I rebooted, and got a kernel panic about not being able to find the root
>> file system.
>>
>> "No filesystem could mount root, tried:"
>> "Kernel panic = not syncing: VFA: Unable to mount root fs on
>> unkown-block(0,0)."
>>
>> Since the old kernel was removed, I couldn't boot the system anymore.
>>
>> I installed Debian Squeeze on top of the not-bootable install and was able
>> to boot again.
>
> Thanks.  Cc-ing the initramfs-tools maintainers, who might know more
> about how to debug such problems.
>
> Thanks for writing,
> Jonathan
>
>
>


Reply to: