On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:17 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> > please cc netdev on network issues.
>
> yes.
>
> >> Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨
> >> Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose debug info unavailable¨
> >> illegal operation: 0001 Ý#1¨
> >
> >
>> that helped going a little further in the boot process but we then have
>> a network issue when bringing the network interface up :
>
> please cc netdev on network issues.
yes.
>> Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨
>> Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
>>> This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg
>>> moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into
>>> the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:16:16 +0200 Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> >> Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >>> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
>
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
> > This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg
> > moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into
> > the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it
> > surfaced a bug: there is
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
> > > Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
> > > After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
> >
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg
moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into
the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it
surfaced a
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:17 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
please cc netdev on network issues.
yes.
Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨
Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose debug info unavailable¨
illegal operation: 0001 Ý#1¨
that's a network
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:16:16 +0200 Cedric Le Goater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote:
This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg
moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into
the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it
surfaced a bug: there is no
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I
that helped going a little further in the boot process but we then have
a network issue when bringing the network interface up :
please cc netdev on network issues.
yes.
Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨
Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose debug info
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
> > Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
> > After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
> > git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
> > (Frown bc
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
> Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
> After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
> git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
> (Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0
>
> Symptom is:
>
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
(Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0
Symptom is:
"Cannot open root device "dasdd2" or unknown-block(94,14)"
even though
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
(Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0
Symptom is:
Cannot
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn:
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
(Frown bc it's a
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked.
After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that
git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :(
(Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0
Symptom is:
Cannot open root device dasdd2 or unknown-block(94,14)
even though
20 matches
Mail list logo
