On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:43:57AM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you missed that cramfs is readonly ?
we actually are missing /dev/root
as mkrootdev /dev/root fails -- read only fs
but it probably
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:07:32PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
I am still unable to mount cramfs initrd at boot, i am seeing the same
problem as Olivier
it doesn't work here too :(
and i have no idea why it isn't working :(
I tested both with olivier and svetljo kernels
(btw i had to run
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:07:32PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
I am still unable to mount cramfs initrd at boot, i am seeing the same
problem as Olivier
it doesn't work here too :(
and i have no idea why it isn't working :(
I tested both with olivier and svetljo kernels
(btw i
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
--- mkinitrd.luca 2003-11-18 21:30:00.0 +0100
+++ mkinitrd.mod_ide2003-11-19 16:39:44.645379336 +0100
added in mkinitrd-3.4.43-9.99.2mdk
which will appear in all theatres as soon i fix a nasty tmpfs-lvm
related
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 05:53:52PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
--- mkinitrd.luca 2003-11-18 21:30:00.0 +0100
+++ mkinitrd.mod_ide2003-11-19 16:39:44.645379336 +0100
added in mkinitrd-3.4.43-9.99.2mdk
which will appear in all theatres as soon i fix a nasty
Luca Berra [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
the real problem is:
how the hell do i know if i have devfs using nash?
if (access(/dev/.devfsd, F_OK) != 0) ...
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:43:57AM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you missed that cramfs is readonly ?
we actually are missing /dev/root
as mkrootdev /dev/root fails -- read only fs
but it probably needs quite
Hi,
I've made some tests this night to reduce the size of 2.6 kernel.
I've modularized almost all that can be (except IDE, mouse and
keyboard).
vmlinuz is now a bit less than 1.3 Megabytes.
Compiling ext2 as a module would save us about 70 more kilobytes.
ext2 module is 79k, cramfs takes
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 13:52:41 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and you dropped some cramfs changes:
--- cut here
---
--- kernel-source-2.6.0-test9-2.6.0-test9.orig/fs/cramfs/inode.c
+++
have you tried adding --nocompress
cramfs is already compressed and adding --nocompress increases the
size with~2k
Yes, I tried, with --compress, the initrd is really a cramfs one (not a
gzipped cramfs), so it needs the cramfs initrd patch.
Same results, the cramfs image is
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it didn't worked, but it works with the debian's mkinitrd
I'll have a look, thanks :)
LFS's mkinitrd is a good reference too.
have you missed that cramfs is readonly ?
we actually are missing /dev/root
as
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it didn't worked, but it works with the debian's mkinitrd
I'll have a look, thanks :)
LFS's mkinitrd is a good reference too.
have you missed that
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:01:01PM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it didn't worked, but it works with the debian's mkinitrd
I'll have a look, thanks :)
LFS's mkinitrd is a good reference too.
have you
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:29:45 +0100
Luca Berra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
will someone hear me please.
i posted about the same issue last time we spoke about replacing
initrd fs.
you need a writable dev!
for devfs this is easy
without devfs it is not!
By the way, what should we do about devfs
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
i'll be happy to test, but sadly i can not help to get it merged :(
ok, point me to a kernel that has cramfs working and i'll start testing
on my own
we'll probably have to keep support for lvm1,
both lvm1 and cramfs?
couldn't
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
By the way, what should we do about devfs ?
It is deprecated, but is there any working alternative yet ?
udev needs userspace tools IIRC.
uhm, good question, we still ship it enabled by default in 9.2, but
there is nothing (i belive)
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:21:26PM +0100, Svetoslav Slavtchev wrote:
i'll be happy to test, but sadly i can not help to get it merged :(
ok, point me to a kernel that has cramfs working and i'll start testing
on my own
binary rpm or source ?-)
for the second you might get my patch tarball or
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you missed that cramfs is readonly ?
we actually are missing /dev/root
as mkrootdev /dev/root fails -- read only fs
but it probably needs quite deeper changes
Actually, that isn't my problem for now,
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:58:17 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
have you missed that cramfs is readonly ?
we actually are missing /dev/root
as mkrootdev /dev/root fails -- read only fs
but it probably needs quite deeper changes
Actually, that isn't my problem
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 09:51:29PM +0100, Olivier Blin wrote:
By the way, what should we do about devfs ?
It is deprecated, but is there any working alternative yet ?
udev needs userspace tools IIRC.
uhm, good question, we still ship it enabled by default in 9.2, but
there is nothing (i
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 02:19:56 +0100 (MET)
Svetoslav Slavtchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i assume this 256 is the trick,
as you said you can mount it from a
running kernel, but it probably can not recognize
it as a rootfs at boot
So, why this patch in Debian to be able to use cramfs initrd ?
By the way, what should we do about devfs ?
It is deprecated, but is there any working alternative yet ?
udev needs userspace tools IIRC.
leave devfs as is.
udev is not a viable replacement as yet so no real
infrastructure to replace devfs currently exists. I have not seen
anyhing more
22 matches
Mail list logo
