Fwd: Also observing #988477

2024-01-18 Thread Elliott Mitchell
I should have Cc'd debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, but failed to do so. As such now forwarding a copy. At the very least this involves the Linux MD-RAID1 functionality, but I am unsure whether this is a Linux kernel bug versus a Xen bug. Forwarded: I am also observing #988477 occur. This

Bug#1049450: New rpc.mountd rejects -N 2 option

2023-08-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 08:57:16AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 04:13:59PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Package: nfs-kernel-server > > Version: 1:2.6.2-4 > > > > Hopefully SSIA. > > > > `rpc.mountd` has a -N opt

Bug#1049450: New rpc.mountd rejects -N 2 option

2023-08-15 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: nfs-kernel-server Version: 1:2.6.2-4 Hopefully SSIA. `rpc.mountd` has a -N option to disable versions of NFS. I had been previously using "-N 2", but that is now broken. The error message was quite non-helpful ("nfsd2" if I recall correctly). Upon removing "-N 2", luckily NFSv2

Bug#1034811: linux: consider CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIRTIO=n

2023-04-24 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 6.0.3-1~bpo11+1 Severity: wishlist Looks like someone had the idea of a virtualized HW RNG. Yet looking at the kernel source, there isn't a single actual implementation. Unless I'm missing something, having CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_VIRTIO simply wastes processor time during

Bug#1034463: closing 1034463

2023-04-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 07:08:03AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > CONFIG_AGP is built-in in Debian, in particular for: > > debian/config/alpha/config:CONFIG_AGP=y > debian/config/amd64/config:CONFIG_AGP=y > debian/config/hppa/config.parisc64:CONFIG_AGP=y >

Bug#1034463: linux: consider CONFIG_AGP=m

2023-04-15 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 5.10.158+2 Severity: wishlist Could AGP support be turned into a module for Debian kernels? I'm tempted to suggest it shouldn't even be built for amd64, but does seem reasonable for i686 kernels. Given this, module seems to make sense. -- (\___(\___(\__

Bug#1009793: linux-source 5.10.106-1 changes block device order

2022-04-17 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 5.10.106-1 Between 5.10.103-1 and 5.10.106-1 (image -13) something changed which reliably causes what used to show as /dev/sda to show as /dev/sdb. Other block devices plugged into the SCSI subsystem may have swapped around, but I've yet to untangle the others. A few

Bug#991967: (Presently) Not in 5.10 source

2021-12-06 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Having finally gotten to test this, the issue does NOT effect 5.10.70-1. So far I've only gotten to try reboot, but that went fine. Might have been an ACPI or Xen mismerge into 4.19. Alas this may simply disappear into history. -- (\___(\___(\__ --=> 8-) EHM <=--

Bug#996608: linux-source-5.10: Mising dependency: dwarves

2021-10-15 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: linux-source-5.10 Version: 5.10.70-1 SSIA. Debian's 5.10 configuration will NOT build without the "dwarves" package (`pahole`). In light of this some package, likely linux-source-5.10 should recommend "dwarves". -- (\___(\___(\__ --=> 8-) EHM <=--

Bug#991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-25 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 06:33:20AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > I presume you are suggesting I try booting 4.19.181-1 on the > current version of Xen-4.14 for bullseye as a dom0. I am not > inclined to try it until an official Debian developer endorses > your opinion that the bug I am seeing

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-20 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 10:23:39PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > On 9/20/21 7:39 PM, Diederik de Haas wrote: > > On dinsdag 21 september 2021 01:15:15 CEST Elliott Mitchell wrote: > >> Merely having the path is a sufficiently strong indicator for me to > >>

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-20 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 06:29:49PM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On 9/20/21 1:43 PM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > > > > On 9/20/21 12:27 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > >> > >>>

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-19 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > xen hypervisor version: 4.14.2+25-gb6a8c4f72d-2, amd64 > > linux kernel version: 5.10.46-4 (the current amd64 kernel > for bullseye) > > Boot system: EFI, not using secure boot, booting xen > hypervisor and dom0 bullseye with

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-19 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 01:05:56AM -0400, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:29:12 +0200 Salvatore Bonaccorso > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > > An experiment lead to a potential alternat

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-12 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 01:29:12PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:47:12PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967. > > The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at

Bug#991967: #991967: Simply ACPI powerdown/reset issue?

2021-09-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
An experiment lead to a potential alternative explanation for #991967. The issue may be ACPI (non-UEFI) powerdown/reset was broken at 4.19.194-3. Presence of Xen on the system may be unrelated. Failing that, it could be Xen and non-UEFI systems are effected. (Xen was tried on a UEFI system and

Bug#991967: linux-src 4.19.194-3 breaks Xen Dom0 powerdown and reboot

2021-08-06 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 4.19.194-3 Control: affects -1 src:xen SSIA. Previous versions of 4.19 had no issues (4.19.181-1 according to notes), but this cropped up with 4.19.194-3 (-1 and -2 weren't tested). When a Xen domain 0 tries to reboot or powerdown the computer, it hangs with the

Bug#939633: More severe #939633 for RP4 on 5.8?

2020-11-27 Thread Elliott Mitchell
found 935456 5.9.6-1~bpo10+1 quit After having spent several hours on kernel compiles and experimenting with the situation, I'm fairly sure this also applies to linux-source-5.9. Odd thing is, when I booted the device using the Tianocore implementation it came right up with no problems. I'm

Bug#923814: Does #923814 dup of #906225?

2020-11-25 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 02:30:30PM -0800, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > The kernel versions are quite different, but #923814 reads suspiciously > like it is a duplicate of #906225. On double-checking, hit the wrong follow-up address. I was wanting to advise the maintainers these two

Bug#939633: More severe #939633 for RP4 on 5.8?

2020-11-25 Thread Elliott Mitchell
found 939633 5.8.10-1~bpo10+1 severity 939633 important merge 935456 939633 quit I'm left suspecting bugs #935456 and #939633, are in reality a single bug: Raspberry Pi device trees were garbled during Debian's 5.2 kernel development. They appear to remain very garbled, to the point of being

Bug#965049: linux-source-5.6 build issues for ARM64

2020-07-14 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 08:20:29PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > I'm speculating the build may work if I run the correct rule, but I > haven't yet identified that. To make things easier for others, "all" was sufficient. -- (\___(\___(\__

Bug#965049: linux-source-5.6 build issues for ARM64

2020-07-14 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 5.6.14-2~bpo10+1 Severity: important I'm guessing this is isolated to ARM64 targets as I don't see other reports. I'm having difficulty trying to taget "bindeb-pkg" with linux-source-5.6. During the initial phase build was terminating quickly, complaining about

Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)

2020-06-15 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:50:35AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > Honestly I don't think I currently have a regression test for this so > it's possible I could have missed something upstream. I haven't seen > any reports, though > > ZFS's ACL implementation is very different from any

Bug#962254: Umask ignored when mounting NFSv4.2 share of an exported ZFS (with acltype=off) (was: Re: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2)

2020-06-13 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:54:31PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > indicated this was specifically observed on ZFS on Linux only. Seth > Arnold's answer seem to be inline with that that the issue is more on > the ZFS on Linux side and the issue keeps biting people a bit > unexpectedly. Why

Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-11 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Bit more experimentation on this issue. I tried a very small C program meant to create files with fewer permissions bits set. This succeeded which strengthens the theory of the umask getting ignored. I haven't seen anything hinting whether this is more a client or server issue. I can speculate

Bug#934160: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-08 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Control: tags 962254 +security -unreproducible Control: severity 962254 grave On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:36:31PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > This now let some rings bell, the described scenario is very similar > to what was reported in https://bugs.debian.org/934160 > > Respectively >

Bug#934160: Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-05 Thread Elliott Mitchell
I've run into a problem which produces the same behavior as bug #934160, but attributed it elsewhere due to other observations. What are the version(s) of the Linux kernel being used on your server and clients? I've confirmed using a 4.9 kernel on a client instead of a 4.19 kernel also works

Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-05 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:36:31PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > This now let some rings bell, the described scenario is very similar > to what was reported in https://bugs.debian.org/934160 > > Respectively > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nfs-utils/+bug/1779736 and >

Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-05 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:44:26AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 10:16:07PM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Somewhere between linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64/4.19.98+1+deb10u1 and > > linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64/4.19.118+2 NFS, in partic

Bug#962254: NFS(v4) broken at 4.19.118-2

2020-06-04 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 4.19.118+2 Severity: important Somewhere between linux-image-4.19.0-8-amd64/4.19.98+1+deb10u1 and linux-image-4.19.0-9-amd64/4.19.118+2 NFS, in particular v4 got broken. Mounting an appropriate filesystem became unreliable, and once mounted behavior is unpredictable.

Bug#926046: Negotiated or default wsize causes misbehavior

2019-03-30 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: nfs-common Version: 1:1.3.4-2.1 I'm using NFSv4 over TCP at the moment. If I don't specify rsize and wsize on the client, either the client negotiates a wsize of 256KB or defaults to a wsize of 256KB ("wsize=262144"). When dumping large amounts of data (moving 2TB of data around,

Bug#801067: Concurring with #801067

2019-03-30 Thread Elliott Mitchell
I have little option, but to agree with Reuben Thomas. The bottom of README.Debian.nfsv4 has a date of "Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:18:03 +0200", more than 10 years old. Even for Debian being in the distribution for 10 years no longer qualifies as "rather new". A 2.6 kernel is no longer "recent" in

Bug#524458: Still a problem? NFS version?

2019-03-30 Thread Elliott Mitchell
It has been quite some time since there was last any activity on #524458. Is this problem still occuring for the submitter? Might it have been fixed in one of the update rounds? If this is still a problem, what version of the NFS protocol is in use? In theory NFSv2 should be able to handle files

Bug#903914: xen_netfront broken in 4.9.110-1

2018-07-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: linux-source-4.9 Version: 4.9.110-1 Anyone who was using jumbo frames inside a Xen guest was fine with 4.9.88-1+deb9u1, but a problem suddenly showed up with 4.9.110-1. Discussion of problem: https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/519117 Something which acts like a working patch is here:

Bug#832629: CONFIG_CGROUPS=n appears to have been broken in updates

2016-07-27 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 3.16.7-ckt25-2+deb8u3 Severity: important Unfortunately I cannot finger the exact version where it happened, but it appears one of the updates to linux-source-3.16 *broke* builds where CONFIG_CGROUPS was left unset. While this may be an unusual configuration, it

Bug#696292: Is #696292 a duplicate of #588675?

2016-07-22 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Reads like #696292 might be yet another manifestation of #588675, or perhaps #588675 is the root cause (or related to the root cause) of #696292. -- (\___(\___(\__ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- __/)___/)___/) \BS (| ehem+sig...@m5p.com PGP 87145445 |) /

Bug#827561: Update 3.2.78 -> 3.2.81 broke builds in fs/fcntl.c

2016-06-17 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Control: tags -1 patch On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:28:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 12:27 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Package: linux-source-3.2 > > Version: 3.2.81-1 > > Severity: important > > > > SSIA: > > > &g

Bug#827561: Update 3.2.78 -> 3.2.81 broke builds in fs/fcntl.c

2016-06-17 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Okay, looked through and not quite the problem I thought. Problem is the section added to fs/fcntl.c:setfl() depends upon CONFIG_MODULES being enabled. Certainly turning off kernel modules isn't all that common, but it is a situation that is actively used for some situations. I also note the

Bug#827561: Update 3.2.78 -> 3.2.81 broke builds in fs/fcntl.c

2016-06-17 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: linux-source-3.2 Version: 3.2.81-1 Severity: important SSIA: CC fs/fcntl.o fs/fcntl.c: In function 'setfl': fs/fcntl.c:186:31: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type fs/fcntl.c:187:30: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type make[2]: *** [fs/fcntl.o] Error 1

Bug#588675: Beginings of Heading Towards a Root Cause of #588675

2016-06-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
For some time I'd been trying to search for a cause of #588675. Looks like I finally searched for the right string (problem is "root" occurs in many places inside the Linux kernel source). Looks like the key file is linux/init/do_mounts.c: Appears the line: ROOT_DEV =

Bug#826999: Kernel build scripts confused by entries for SCSI devices in /proc/mounts

2016-06-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Control: reopen 826999 On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:06:16AM -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 01:15:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > I make no judgement about the significance of that bug. ??But if you > > refuse to answer a maintainer's reasonable

Bug#826999: Kernel build scripts confused by entries for SCSI devices in /proc/mounts

2016-06-11 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 01:15:18PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Control: forcmerge??588675 -1 > > On Fri, 2016-06-10 at 18:16 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > The kernel build scripts are confused by what the SCSI subsystem produces > > in /proc/mounts: > > This is

Bug#826999: Kernel build scripts confused by entries for SCSI devices in /proc/mounts

2016-06-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: src:linux Version: 3.2.63-2 Control: found -1 linux/2.6.18 Control: found -1 linux/3.16.7-ckt25-2 Control: found -1 linux/3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u3 Control: found -1 linux/3.2.78-1 Control: found -1 linux/3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u6~bpo70+1 Control: found -1 linux/2.6.32 The kernel build scripts

Bug#588675: Summary of observations of #588675

2016-06-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:19:47PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Are you using LILO? ??Are you specifying the root device by name or > UUID? I'm quite certain that is completely irrelevant. Either of those, or even allowing the rdev field in the kernel image should result in the device being

Bug#588675: Summary of observations of #588675

2016-06-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Control: retitle 588675 SCSI subsystem loses name of root device on boot Control: severity 588675 normal Control: found 588675 3.2.78-1 Control: found 588675 3.16.7-ckt20-1+deb8u3 Control: found 588675 3.16.7-ckt25-2 Control: found 588675 2.6.18 According to the advanced information on the BTS,

Bug#820567: kexec on mipsel partially broken between ckt20 and ckt25

2016-04-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 01:34:56AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 14:32 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 07:47:28PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > That in no way contradicts what I said. :-) ??When I backport the linux > &g

Bug#820567: kexec on mipsel partially broken between ckt20 and ckt25

2016-04-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 07:47:28PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 11:09 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:09:38AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 18:31 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: >

Bug#820567: kexec on mipsel partially broken between ckt20 and ckt25

2016-04-10 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 10:09:38AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 18:31 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Between 3.16.7-ctk20 and 3.16.7-ctk25 the kexec functionality of the > > Linux kernel was damaged.The system I'm looking at uses a 3.3 kernel > &

Bug#820567: kexec on mipsel partially broken between ckt20 and ckt25

2016-04-09 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: linux-source-3.16 Version: 3.16.7-ckt25-1~bpo70+1 Between 3.16.7-ctk20 and 3.16.7-ctk25 the kexec functionality of the Linux kernel was damaged. The system I'm looking at uses a 3.3 kernel to load the "real" kernel off a filesystem and kexec into that. The 3.3 kernel was able to

Bug#588675: / left as /dev/root with non-initrd kernel

2015-12-03 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 03:11:45PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > On 12/02/2015 04:30 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > You're thinking of the wrong bug. #588675 is the bug # for /proc/mounts > > having "/dev/root" listed as the device for the root filesystem. Your >

Bug#588675: / left as /dev/root with non-initrd kernel

2015-12-02 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Control: found -1 3.16.7-ckt11-1+deb8u6~bpo70+1 Control: found -1 2.6.32 Could you confirm a few things about what you've seen of bug 588675? Did you observe the behavior prior to Debian wheezy/Linux kernel 3.2? What type of disk/controller/disk subsystem is on your powerpc system? >From your

Bug#588675: / left as /dev/root with non-initrd kernel

2015-12-02 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 02:15:18PM -0800, Christian Kujau wrote: > On 12/02/2015 01:23 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > > Could you confirm a few things about what you've seen of bug 588675? > > > > Did you observe the behavior prior to Debian wheezy/Linux kernel 3.2? >

Bug#588675: Narrowing on location of bug #588675

2015-01-04 Thread Elliott Mitchell
reassign 588675 linux-source 2.6.32 retitle 588675 SCSI subsystem forgets root device on boot found 588675 2.6.18 found 588675 3.2.63-2 submitter 588675 ! quit I suspect the list of kernel versions with this bug is rather longer, but I'm merely including some of those I'm certain it does effect.

Bug#588675: Narrowing on location of bug #588675

2015-01-04 Thread Elliott Mitchell
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:17:28AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: Control: reassign -1 src:linux 3.2.63-2 Control: retitle -1 / left as /dev/root with non-initrd kernel Control: severity -1 wishlist Control: tag -1 upstream wontfix On Sun, 2015-01-04 at 16:02 -0800, Elliott Mitchell wrote

Is #588675 (/ left as /dev/root) A Kernel Bug?

2014-12-22 Thread Elliott Mitchell
#588675 may not be all that severe, but does cause issues with multiple packages. The issue is sometime between Debian Etch and Debian Lenny the line for the root filesystem in /proc/mounts stopped listing the actual device (/dev/sda1) started listing /dev/root instead. One crucial ingredient

Bug#572406: users Mount Option Broken

2011-03-21 Thread Elliott Mitchell
From: Luk Claes l...@debian.org The users option got broken with the latest release, despite working correctly in 1:1.0.10-6+etch.1 (old stable). Non-root users can mount filesystems listed in /etc/fstab that have users specified, but they will be unable to unmount the filesystem

Bug#572406: users Mount Option Broken

2011-03-21 Thread Elliott Mitchell
I should also add that I'm now dealing with nfs-common 1:1.2.2-4, and mount 2.17.2-9 (current stable). -- (\___(\___(\__ --= 8-) EHM =-- __/)___/)___/) \BS (| e...@gremlin.m5p.com PGP F6B23DE0 |) / \_CS\ | _ -O #include

Bug#589118: `rdev` setting ignored

2010-07-16 Thread Elliott Mitchell
reopen 589118 quit From: Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk On Thu, 2010-07-15 at 13:48 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: Bzzzt! While the initrd= kernel command-line option and `rdev` kernel settings are not completely orthogonal, they are mostly unrelated. You obviously haven't read

Bug#589118: `rdev` setting ignored

2010-07-15 Thread Elliott Mitchell
reopen 589118 quit From: Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk On Wed, 2010-07-14 at 18:11 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.92o Subject tells the story. Appears the images generated by initramfs-tools completely ignore the `rdev` setting that the kernel

Bug#589118: `rdev` setting ignored

2010-07-14 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.92o Subject tells the story. Appears the images generated by initramfs-tools completely ignore the `rdev` setting that the kernel was given to the kernel. While 99% of users may be explicitly passing the root device via passing root=/dev/foo through the

Bug#575154: Incorrect assumes existance of /proc/modules

2010-03-23 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.92o If the running kernel has had module support removed, you'll get a bunch of errors of: grep: /proc/modules: No such file or directory The one place I found was in /usr/share/initramfs-tools/hook-functions, the function manual_add_modules(). Looks like you

Bug#575157: Calling `cpio` can produce error messages when working correctly

2010-03-23 Thread Elliott Mitchell
Package: initramfs-tools Version: 0.92o Severity: minor Thankfully pretty harmless, despite the annoyance: cpio: ./etc/udev/RCS: Cannot stat: No such file or directory Looks like `/usr/sbin/mkinitramfs` is the culprit. In this case, /etc/udev/RCS is a symbolic link to ../RCS --