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

(solved) Re: GRUB2 in edit mode



On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 20:13:00 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

> Am Samstag, 22. Oktober 2011 schrieb Camaleón:

>> I am trying to get a more paused bootup messages by appending
>> "boot_delay=1000" to the kernel line in GRUB2 edit mode (I'm adding
>> this at the "linux" line, after "ro quiet"), but when I press F10 to
>> continue with the boot sequence it hangs at:
> 
> Its one second per line if milliseconds are correct, but since you
> looked it up, I bet it is.
> 
> Then you have "quiet". Maybe it counts those quiet messages as well?
> There might be many. It does not make sense that the kernel issues a
> printk for these quiet message and then printk will use the delay for
> these, but maybe thats the bug.
> 
> What happens when you remove quiet and use boot_delay=1000? Maybe thats
> worth a try.

Very good tip, although I think "quiet" should not be interfering at all 
(it only makes the kernel logging be less verbose) this is worth for 
trying, of course, hold on...

Okay, it seems hanging again with different text lines but booting is 
stopped:

***
Booting a command list

Loading Linux 3.0.0-1-686-pae ...
Loading initial ramdisk ...

Decompressing Linux... Parsing ELF... done.
Booting the kernel.
***

And here stays forever.

(seven minutes later) 

Mmm, wait, wait... it is loading now, slowly -for the kernel messages 
part as it has to be- but it loads. 

Hey, thanks much! That could mean that the "quiet" part is just 
preventing me to see the kernel messages despite the system is indeed 
booting and it stays with the black screen until it finishes the kernel 
logging... let's try it now with "quiet boot_delay=1000":

(boot started at 22:51)
(22:57 → black screen)
(23:03 → black screen)
(23:11 → non-kernel messages start appearing)

Mmm, perfect. So "quiet" and "boot_delay" cannot be (now, since 
always? :-?) put together as they seem to override each other somehow.

Greetings,

-- 
Camaleón


Reply to: