2.5.68 kernel no initrd
Hello,
Ok, i should learn to leave well enough alone, but i don't. After
successfully installing a monolithic 2.5.67 kernel i decided i wanted modules, so i made them, and what happened, it hung after the initrd initialized. So, when 2.5.68 came out i of course grab it, compile/install it without a hitch, but for one thing, as of now make install did not make an initrd for that install. Does anyone know how to make this manually, it won't boot without one?
Thanks.
Dave.
Quoted 7 lines · Dave Mehler
Ok, i should learn to leave well enough alone, but i don't. After
successfully installing a monolithic 2.5.67 kernel i decided i wanted modules, so i made them, and what happened, it hung after the initrd initialized. So, when 2.5.68 came out i of course grab it, compile/install it without a hitch, but for one thing, as of now make install did not make an initrd for that install. Does anyone know how to make this manually, it won't boot without one?
I don't have experience with initrd, but why would you want a initrd? Can't you simply build into the kernel the required pieces to mount the root filesystem and leave the rest as loadable modules?
Signature · 3 lines
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Linux Registered User #287198
Quoted 3 lines · Felipe Alfaro Solana
I don't have experience with initrd, but why would you want a initrd? Can't you simply build into the kernel the required pieces to mount the root filesystem and leave the rest as loadable modules?
As long as you are suporting or testing a small number of configurations, say less than two, initrd buys not much. But using all modules allows you to support a new config just by rebuilding initrd, vastly faster than building a kernel on most machines. And for a vendor doing a distribution it is a huge win.
Not to mention some drivers work differently when loaded as modules, loading as modules allows control of the device scans, etc, etc. It's just more flexible.
Signature · 3 lines
bill davidsen <[email protected]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Quoted 10 lines · Felipe Alfaro Solana
Quoted 7 lines
Ok, i should learn to leave well enough alone, but i don't. After successfully installing a monolithic 2.5.67 kernel i decided i wanted modules, so i made them, and what happened, it hung after the initrd initialized. So, when 2.5.68 came out i of course grab it, compile/install it without a hitch, but for one thing, as of now make install did not make an initrd for that install. Does anyone know how to make this manually, it won't boot without one?
I don't have experience with initrd, but why would you want a initrd? Can't you simply build into the kernel the required pieces to mount the root filesystem and leave the rest as loadable modules?
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.
Signature · 4 lines
pozdr. Paweł Gołaszewski --------------------------------- worth to see: http://www.againsttcpa.com/ CPU not found - software emulation...
Quoted 3 lines · On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:49:54 +0200, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?= said:
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.
Amen. initrd isn't just for modules - I'd not need an initrd at all if I could figure out how to start up an LVM volume group from kernelspace - I suspect people with / on a RAID disk have similar issues...
Quoted 10 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:49:54 +0200, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?= said:
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.Amen. initrd isn't just for modules - I'd not need an initrd at all if I could figure out how to start up an LVM volume group from kernelspace - I suspect people with / on a RAID disk have similar issues...
Well, even though I'm working on a solution to that, it still involves early userspace, just not the heavyweight "fake root" userspace that an initrd represents. This is what the initramfs technology in 2.5.X is for, so eventually (soon, hopefully) you'll be able to start md devices, LVM volume groups, etc. from early userspace and not have to have any autostart logic in the kernel nor will you have build and maintain an initrd separate from the kernel.
Quoted 3 lines · Paweł Gołaszewski
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.
I don't have any doubts that initrd is a very flexible solution and provides for a generic kernel. However, in the end (I'm talking about my experiences), initrd has caused me more troubles than problems it solved. I always keep all "config" file for every kernel I use on my machines.
Signature · 3 lines
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Linux Registered User #287198
Quoted 14 lines · Kevin P. Fleming
Quoted 11 lines · [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:49:54 +0200, =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Pawe=B3_Go=B3aszewski?= said:
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.Amen. initrd isn't just for modules - I'd not need an initrd at all if I could figure out how to start up an LVM volume group from kernelspace - I suspect people with / on a RAID disk have similar issues...
Quoted 7 lines
Well, even though I'm working on a solution to that, it still involves early userspace, just not the heavyweight "fake root" userspace that an initrd represents. This is what the initramfs technology in 2.5.X is for, so eventually (soon, hopefully) you'll be able to start md devices, LVM volume groups, etc. from early userspace and not have to have any autostart logic in the kernel nor will you have build and maintain an initrd separate from the kernel.
It isn't too important where the setup resides in terms of flexibility, the benefit comes from avoiding building one kernel for each configuration.
Quoted 10 lines · Felipe Alfaro Solana
Quoted 3 lines · Pawe³ Go³aszewski
initrd gives much more flexibility.
I can make one kernel and use it on _all_ of my mashines, just change initrd. quick, nice and flexible with proper initrd tools set.I don't have any doubts that initrd is a very flexible solution and provides for a generic kernel. However, in the end (I'm talking about my experiences), initrd has caused me more troubles than problems it solved. I always keep all "config" file for every kernel I use on my machines.
Other than needing to build and maintain all those kernels, what does it gain you over installing the modules you need and having a single kernel?
Signature · 3 lines
bill davidsen <[email protected]> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
Quoted 8 lines · Bill Davidsen
Quoted 5 lines
I don't have any doubts that initrd is a very flexible solution and provides for a generic kernel. However, in the end (I'm talking about my experiences), initrd has caused me more troubles than problems it solved. I always keep all "config" file for every kernel I use on my machines.
Other than needing to build and maintain all those kernels, what does it gain you over installing the modules you need and having a single kernel?
Simply said, I don't like "initrd". I have still to figure out how to make an "initrd" that includes the newer modutils.
Anyways, I don't mantain so much kernels (only 3 or 4 different versions), and have a mix of AMD/P4/P3/P2/PI machines that need things that can't be configured/don't yet work as modules, so I prefer to pass initrd by...
Signature · 3 lines
Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Linux Registered User #287198