> To be pedantic (I'm not trying to split hairs, just trying not to
> dismiss things out of hand!), there could be a bug in
> 1. 2.6.21.5 (so, perhaps 2.6.21 might have worked)
> 2. the kernel config system - maybe something got turned off
> 3. maybe something new in 2.6.21{,.5} is selected by default but
> doesn't work on your hardware.
>
> Assuming you still have the .config that you _created_ (you did run
> 'make oldconfig', right?), try diffing it against the config from
> 2.6.20.3 to see what has changed. First, you are looking for
> changes you didn't expect to see (particularly, things no longer
> selected). After that, look at what new things were turned on.
I ran make menuconfig, checked if things were changed and exited without
modifying (but answered yes to saving .config). I don't have that .21.5 config
anymore..
>
> If nothing jumps out at you, I'd try testing with 2.6.21 itself, to
> see if the problem was new in 2.6.21 or is from one of the -stable
> updates.
>
> I'm not on an x86 box at the moment so I can't review my own dmesg,
> but things I would look at are sysfs compatability (I think that was
> new in 2.6.21, you almost certainly want it turned on), filesystems
> (in case any dropped out), and SATA/IDE drivers - I can't remember
> which kernel changed all the options for SATA and libata, maybe it
> was already changed in 2.6.20, but this sounds like the sort of
> result you might get without the correct disk driver(s).
sysfs compatibility was off (there read something about only distros before -06
needing it..), ext3 was compiled in, and the same ide drivers as with .20.3.
Anyway I now tried plain 2.6.21 with sysfs- & vdso compat enabled:
Saving didn't disable anything already enabled.
Booting:
The same. Doesn't mount root, gives no errors, ctrl-alt-del works.
Adding init=/bin/sh had no effect. I'm going to the latest .20..
I can't even report this bug, as there are no errors..
> > I keep some older kernels around for things like this, and I were
> > able to boot them.
>
> Good.
> > The main question: if I go back to 2.6.20.3, and glibc was built
> > with .21 headers, will it cause problems?
> >
> > Thanks, Lauri
>
> I don't know for certain, but I think it's definitely a
> possibility.
>
> ĸen
--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
Powered by Outblaze
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
