Re: new kernel fails to boot - run-parts issue?
Hi Adrian!
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
You need to update debianutils to 5.23.2 first, see [1].
thanks. that bug is it. I upgraded that package, then initramfs
generated correctly and I could try to boot into the new kernel
succesfully. Still I hape the mixed time64_t issue, but I wanted to
check the kernel.
The bad news, it doesn't like my iBook. It starts to boot, transitions
to the first framebuffer (that black&white one that has some refresh
issues and stripes, before the final one gets loaded) and that
overwrites itself a bit.
The last thing I can see are:
Console: colour dummy device 80x25
printk: legacy console [tty0] enabled
printk: legacy bootconsole [udbg0] disabled
then it hangs. I left it there all night, still hung.
Luckily, LinuxOld kernel still boots. If I compare, that is really the
moment where the framebuffer with colors kicks in after a short delay.
Is atyfb for ATI Rage still in the kernel?
Is PPC 750 still supported?
6.5.0-5-powerpc #1 Debian 6.5.13-1 (2023-11-29)
Dmesg however shows these lines:
[ 0.002840] Console: colour dummy device 80x25
[ 0.003280] printk: console [tty0] enabled
[ 0.003675] printk: bootconsole [udbg0] disabled
[ 0.004328] pmac_zilog: serial modem detected
[ 0.005001] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301
[ 0.018995] LSM: initializing
lsm=capability,landlock,yama,apparmor,tomoyo,bpf,integrity
[ 0.025201] landlock: Up and running.
[ 0.025235] Yama: disabled by default; enable with sysctl kernel.yama.*
[ 0.025882] AppArmor: AppArmor initialized
[ 0.025944] TOMOYO Linux initialized
[ 0.026093] LSM support for eBPF active
[ 0.029770] Mount-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 4096
bytes, linear)
[ 0.029856] Mountpoint-cache hash table entries: 1024 (order: 0, 4096
bytes, linear)
[ 0.047123] RCU Tasks Rude: Setting shift to 0 and lim to 1
rcu_task_cb_adjust=1.
[ 0.047562] RCU Tasks Trace: Setting shift to 0 and lim to 1
rcu_task_cb_adjust=1.
[ 0.055442] devtmpfs: initialized
[ 0.056271] Duplicate name in PowerPC,750@0, renamed to "l2-cache#1"
so maybe they are not readable on screen and we don't know exactly
Riccardo
Reply to: