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

Re: kernel 2.4.x and unstable



On Sat, Sep 08, 2001 at 10:05:33AM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
| Yes, it's me again.
| 
| Once this is sorted I'll stop bugging you, I promise!
| 
| Does the kernel-image for 2.4.x from unstable come with devfsd on?  I
                                                               ^
devfsd and devfs are two different things.  devfsd is a user-space
daemon that registers itself with a devfs-enabled kernel to provide
various naming and partition adjustments when devfs events occur.

No, the stock kernels don't have devfs enabled by default.  You can
either recompile your kernel and enable devfs and auto-mount it at
boot time OR you can add "devfs=mount" to your kernel command line.

| tried mounting a zip disk (external ppa) and the device was
| /dev/scsi/0/... not /dev/sda4 where it normally sits.  I tried
| installing devfsd and it didn't work out-of-the-box.

I don't know why your disk would have changed path, but devfsd does
install out-of-the-box.  See below for the reason it "didn't" work for
you.

| I had a read of /etc/init.d/devfsd and it quits if it can't find
| /dev/.devfsd.  I created that and rebooted, but then when devfsd starts
| it sits on "Creating symlinks" and hangs.  I tried moving /dev to
| /olddev and creating an empty /dev with just .devfsd in, and this really
| broke the boot sequence!

Yes, I would expect this.  If you read the devfs FAQ/Howto by Richard
Gooch it explains that the magic file /dev/.devfsd is created by the
kernel when devfs is used.  Programs that wish to know whether or not
devfs is being used should check for the presence of that file.  By
creating that file by hand you have just lied to devfsd to make it
think devfs is currently being used, but it isn't which is why it
fails.

| Can anyone who has devfsd/kernel 2.4 working give me a hand?

Add 'devfs=mount' to your kernel command line and try again.  Use the
old-dev name for the root= argument though.

HTH,
-D



Reply to: