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

Re: Missing (kernel) modules

Peter Whysall wrote:

on Wed, Jun 05, 2002, Glen Lee Edwards (glen@fcwm.org) wrote:

I have Woody installed with the 2.2-20 kernel. I apt-get installed the 2.4.18 kernel for both k7 and i686. Both installed ok, but both hung on boot, stating that the root file system couldn't be mounted. As an experiment, I downloaded the latest stable kernel from kernel.org and compiled it. It compiled and installed fine, and boots fine, except that it's missing many of the modules I need, including all of the network modules I need for my nics. I've gone completely through the kernel configuration several times. They just aren't there. But they're included in all the dpkgs I've installed. What am I missing? Is there another source for modules other than the kernel tar ball?

I suspect that it's not a module problem per se but rather the fact that
the pre-built kernels use an initial ramdisk (initrd) and you haven't
added an "initrd=/initrd.img" parameter to the appropriate line in

IIRC you need to put this parameter on the "image" line like so:

image=/vmlinuz initrd=/initrd.img

Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong but this is what fixed a
similar error for me.


I did add in the initrd line. To get lilo to take it I had to use initrd=/boot/initrd.img. I didn't write down the exact error message, but it stated something like: "Can't mount root file system on 3.0" or something like that. It might have been "3:0". I had root=/dev/hda1 in lilo.conf.

Regarding the missing modules, when I searched through the dpkg installs, /lib/modules/<release>/ had all the modules I need: sis, eeproXX, etc. After compiling my own kernel, /lib/modules/<compiled kernel>/ had only a skeleton number of modules, none of which worked on my ethernic cards. sis, sis900, eeproXX, etc., weren't there.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: