Re: [gentoo-user] xfs recovery + kernel panic

2006-07-07 Thread David Miller
I would try booting off a live cd that has the xfs utils on it. That way you can get your drive sorted out without worrying about your OS getting in the way.--DavidOn 7/7/06, 
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello, guys!Situation:1) Unclean shutdown2) Boot3) Kernel tries to mount /4) xfs recovery starts5) In the same time (before recovery is finished) kernel tries to startinit, fails and panics.
If I take the HDD and mount it (not as /) on another machine, there isno problem. The recovery finishes OK and afterward xfs_rapair doesn'tfind any errors. The next unclean shutdown everything repeats.
Is there a way to make the kernel wait for the recovery to finish beforetrying to start init or any other workaround?.Thank you in advance!--Best regards,Daniel--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list


Re: [gentoo-user] xfs recovery + kernel panic

2006-07-07 Thread Richard Fish

On 7/7/06, Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Hello, guys!

Situation:
1) Unclean shutdown
2) Boot
3) Kernel tries to mount /
4) xfs recovery starts
5) In the same time (before recovery is finished) kernel tries to start
init, fails and panics.


Hmm, I don't see this with my system.  I'm pretty sure that the
mount() system call should not be returning before the recovery is
finished.  What kernel and baselayout versions are you using?

-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] xfs recovery + kernel panic

2006-07-07 Thread Daniel Iliev
David Miller wrote:
 I would try booting off a live cd that has the xfs utils on it.  That way
 you can get your drive sorted out without worrying about your OS getting in
 the way.

Interesting approach. This is exactly a workaround. If there is no
straight solution I may finally find myself forced to go this way.

Thank, you for the idea!

-- 
Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] xfs recovery + kernel panic

2006-07-07 Thread Daniel Iliev
Richard Fish wrote:

 
 Hmm, I don't see this with my system.  I'm pretty sure that the
 mount() system call should not be returning before the recovery is
 finished.  What kernel and baselayout versions are you using?
 
 -Richard

===
kernel: 2.6.16-ck12 #3 PREEMPT  (ck-sources)
sys-apps/baselayout-1.11.15-r3  USE=static unicode -bootstrap -build
===

I use the same kernel on my desktop and never had this problem.However I
have to say there's a big difference between the desktop and the
problematic PC. While the PC has a plain setup - only 1 hdd with only 1
partition (hda1), the desktop has its root on a 2-disk software raid0.
So the desktop mounts /dev/md0 preliminary, then xfs recovery takes
place if needed, and switchroot /sysroot is made at the end.

H...witting this email I think an idea occurred to me...:)

What stops me make the same way of booting on the problematic PC? Well,
this would be a workaround again while I prefer a straight solution.

-- 
Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-user] xfs recovery + kernel panic

2006-07-07 Thread Richard Fish

On 7/7/06, Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I use the same kernel on my desktop and never had this problem.However I
have to say there's a big difference between the desktop and the
problematic PC. While the PC has a plain setup - only 1 hdd with only 1
partition (hda1), the desktop has its root on a 2-disk software raid0.
So the desktop mounts /dev/md0 preliminary, then xfs recovery takes
place if needed, and switchroot /sysroot is made at the end.


Ahh, this could very likely be the difference.  I use dm-crypt on all
my filesystems, so a very similar situation: my initramfs first mounts
my root filesystem, and then chroot's into it.  The mount call from
userspace is likely the difference.

I would suggest to try and duplicate it with an initrd/initramfs, and
if it goes away, file a bug at bugs.kernel.org.  They might refuse a
bug report with -ck sources, so you might have to report it with the
maintainer of the -ck sources, or switch to vanilla for the testing.
But either way it seems like a kernel bug to me...

-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list