Bug#810808: initramfs-tools: lvm on NVMe boot drives brakes mkinitramfs
Package: initramfs-tools
Version: 0.120
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i patch
Dear Maintainer,
while trying installing debian 8.2 onto a PCIe SSD (NVMe device) the
creation of the initrd is failing.
root@holodeck10:~# apt-get install -f.
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree.......
Reading state information... Done
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
3 not fully installed or removed.
After this operation, 0 B of additional disk space will be used.
Setting up linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 (3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u2) ...
/etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools:
update-initramfs: Generating /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64
mkinitramfs: for device /dev/dm-0 missing nvme /sys/block/ entry
mkinitramfs: workaround is MODULES=most
mkinitramfs: Error please report the bug
update-initramfs: failed for /boot/initrd.img-3.16.0-4-amd64 with 1.
run-parts: /etc/kernel/postinst.d/initramfs-tools exited with return code 1
Failed to process /etc/kernel/postinst.d at /var/lib/dpkg/info/linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64.postinst line 634.
dpkg: error processing package linux-image-3.16.0-4-amd64 (--configure):
subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
i found the missing support in /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hook-functions
This patch fixes the problem:
--- /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hook-functions 2016-01-12 14:36:21.471588490 +0100
+++ hook-functions.orig 2016-01-12 14:28:29.675566666 +0100
@@ -364,10 +364,9 @@
if [ "${block#md}" != "${block}" ]; then
block=$(sed -ne 's/multipath/[/' -e 's/linear/[/' -e 's/raid[0-9][0-9]*/[/' -e 's/\([hs]d[a-z][a-z]*\)[0-9][0-9]*/\1/g' -e '/^'${block}'
:/s/^[^[]*\[ \([^\[]*\)\[.*$/\1/p' </proc/mdstat)
fi
- # luks or lvm on cciss or ida or nvme
+ # luks or lvm on cciss or ida
if [ "${block#cciss}" != "${block}" ] \
- || [ "${block#ida}" != "${block}" ] \
- || [ "${block#nvme}" != "${block}" ] ; then
+ || [ "${block#ida}" != "${block}" ]; then
block="${block%p*}"
else
block=${block%%[0-9]*}
Reply to: