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

Re: Bug#636123: kernel panic after installing 2.6.39 from backports on squeeze



Am 22.08.2011 20:32, schrieb Ben Hutchings:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 06:55:12PM +0200, Valentijn Scholten wrote:
I am running into a similar isue with 2.6.39.2. amd64.

I decided to install 2.6.39.2 from backports (apt-get install ...)

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)."
[...]

Hi,
Im running Squeeze on an Intel S1200BTS (quite new hardware with i3-2100T and two NICs). Because only one NIC was supported by the recent stable kernel, I decided to install the newest kernel from squeeze-backports. I've made positive experiences with 2.6.38bpo on other systems.

The root systems resides on a bios backed softraid (dm-raid) level 1.
After installing the 2.6.39bpo I run into the same trap as described above. I rebooted with the default stable kernel kernel.

Because installing the system on the dm-raid device wasn't that straight forward, I thought it had to do something with the generated device name in /dev/mapper/<generatedid> for the dm-raid (thesis: different behaviour with UUID for dmraids in newer kernels?). So I changed the kernel commandline in grub.cfg and reconfigured grub (replace UUID with /dev/mapper/<id> which regenerated a ramdisk, too). The newer kernel booted fine now.

But after reading, that other people experienced the same problem with installing 2.6.39bpo (in devmapperlib context), I now know, that a missing update-initramfs after installing might be the problem (which I triggered unconciously by reconfiguring grub).

I do not use dracut, just stable with kernel from backports.
So I like to state, that there is a known workaround: Make sure to regenerate the initramfs before rebooting and do not uninstall the stable kernel ;-)

I'm not in front of the mentioned hardware right now, so I cannot reproduce it reliably. Therefore I don't want to spam the bug history.

Regards,
Marcus


Reply to: