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

Re: kernel problems -- boot and network



On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 11:16:16PM -0400 or thereabouts, dman wrote:
> 
> I'm having some problems with kernels in the areas of booting and
> network.  First some background :
> 
> I now have a laptop (Dell 7500) at work that I am allowed to install
> Debian (woohoo!).  The install went great.  I used a potato cd (2.2r2)
> then switched to woody.  The machine has a 3Com PCMCIA network adapter
> that uses the 3c575_cb driver.  THat is with kernel 2.2.18pre21 that
> was on my potato disc.
> 
> I was able to install kernel image 2.4.9-686 and it boots fine with or
> without devfs.  However, it doesn't seem to have the driver for the
> NIC nor does it have VESA framebuffer support.
> 
> I compiled my own custom 2.4.9 (and 2.4.8) kernel with devfs mounted
> at boot time, my NIC driver, VESA framebuffer and initrd support.
> However, neither of these kernels will boot.  The fb stuff works and
> the NIC is found, but the boot process stops with :
> 
> 
> Freeing initrd memory: 864k freed
> FAT: bogus logical sector size 0
> FAT: bogus logical sector size 0
> Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 01:00
> 
> 
> I have no FAT partitions.  All partitions are ext2 : /dev/hda1 as
> /boot , /dev/hda2 as nothing (will be win2k later) , /devhda3 as swap
> and /dev/hda4 as /.  What device is 01:00?  I don't think it is
> /dev/hda4.  I have also verified that I compiled ext2 support into the
> kernel.
> 
> 
> I have kernel 2.4.8 working great on my desktop system with devfs, 
> framebuffer and initrd support.  I am at a loss as to what could be
> the problem.
> 
you lost me too. :-)  can't you do things one at a time and see where
it fails?  start with the nic first, if that works then work on the
fb.

-- 
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible
to accomplish complex actions."   --Doug Gwyn  (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards)

Attachment: pgp36inDGxC03.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: