Bug#763620: initramfs depends on DEVTMPFS now?

[Michal Hocko <mstsxfx@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 01:17:35AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Control: tag -1 moreinfo
> 
> On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 13:44 +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 12:00:28PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 11:15:46AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I have reverted to 0.116 which works just fine. I am perfectly OK with
> > > > staying with this version but maybe the newer version should depend on
> > > > systemd so the reason for this requirement is clear.
> > > 
> > > you mix udev and systemd, so no it doesn't need full systemd. It needs
> > > the devices to show up. And yes udev is part nowadays of systemd.
> > 
> > Yeah, I meant udev but then ended up writing systemd instead.
> >  
> > > Also you may want to just fix your config setup. (;
> 
> I tried a custom Linux 3.16.3 (defconfig minus CONFIG_DEVTMPFS plus
> virtio drivers), udev 175-7.2, and initramfs-tools versions 0.109.1
> (wheezy), 0.116 and 0.117.  All of them produced a *warning* at boot
> about missing devtmpfs, but all of them booted.

I am not getting any warning neither during initramfs phase nor during
boot:
$ apt-show-versions -p initramfs-tools
initramfs-tools:all/unstable 0.116 upgradeable to 0.118
$ zgrep DEVTMPFS /proc/config.gz 
# CONFIG_DEVTMPFS is not set
$ grep -i DEVTMPFS /var/log/syslog
$ grep -i DEVTMPFS /var/log/messages
$ grep -i DEVTMPFS /var/log/kern.log
$ dmesg | grep -i DEVTMPFS 
$

> So I suspect that the boot failure is not related to CONFIG_DEVTMPFS but
> is one of the several known bugs in 0.117 that were fixed in 0.118.
> Please try that version.

0.118 is working fine. This is interesting because I am pretty sure
I've tried to recompile my kernel with DEVTMPFS enabled previously and
it worked with 0.117. But now that I am trying to reproduce it with
0.117 installed from the cached .deb the config option doesn't make any
difference. I've noticed that 0.118 pulled in newew util-linux and some
other packages so it seems you are right and this was not directly
related to CONFIG_DEVTMPFS after all.

Thanks for your help and sorry for confusion. I should have checked all
the error messages better.
-- 
Michal Hocko