2.6.0-test2-mm1: Can't mount root

DISCUSSION Shawn 2 participants 11 messages Jul 28, 2003 – Jul 29, 2003 VFS

Share & tools

Shawn

author

2003-07-28 21:43 UTC #0 lore raw

I'm using ide=reverse, and my root is on hde5. 2.6.0-test1-mm2 finds my root fs fine using the init/do_mounts.c patch posted recently.

2.6.0-test2-mm1 (in which said patch seems to have been included), however, fails on all of the following root= options:
* 2105
* /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part5
* /dev/hde5

I don't know what to try next. Can someone enlighten me as to what has been happening lately?

Andrew Morton

2003-07-28 21:58 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 4 lines · Shawn

I'm using ide=reverse, and my root is on hde5. 2.6.0-test1-mm2 finds my root fs fine using the init/do_mounts.c patch posted recently.

Quoted 8 lines

2.6.0-test2-mm1 (in which said patch seems to have been included), however, fails on all of the following root= options:
* 2105
* /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part5
* /dev/hde5
I don't know what to try next. Can someone enlighten me as to what has been happening lately?

Beats me. Tried "/dev/hde/5" and "21:05"?

Can you see what this says?

 25-akpm/init/do_mounts.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)

init/do_mounts.c renamed from init/do_mounts.c~a +1 -0

diff -puN init/do_mounts.c~a init/do_mounts.c
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ static dev_t __init try_name(char *name,
 	/*
 	 * The format of dev is now %u:%u -- see print_dev_t()
 	 */
+	printk("scanning `%s'\n", buf);
 	if (sscanf(buf, "%u:%u", &maj, &min) == 2)
 		res = MKDEV(maj, min);
 	else

Also take a close look at the dmesg output, make sure that all the devices and partitions are appearing in the expected places.

Shawn

author

2003-07-28 22:07 UTC #2 lore raw

Thank you, I didn't look very closely at the patch (really at all).

The one thing making me think I had it right with "2105" was that the kernel did seem to grok it as (33,5).

Quoted 39 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 4 lines · Shawn
I'm using ide=reverse, and my root is on hde5. 2.6.0-test1-mm2 finds my root fs fine using the init/do_mounts.c patch posted recently.
Quoted 8 lines
2.6.0-test2-mm1 (in which said patch seems to have been included), however, fails on all of the following root= options:
* 2105
* /dev/ide/host2/bus0/target0/lun0/part5
* /dev/hde5
I don't know what to try next. Can someone enlighten me as to what has been happening lately?
Beats me. Tried "/dev/hde/5" and "21:05"?
Can you see what this says?
 25-akpm/init/do_mounts.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff -puN init/do_mounts.c~a init/do_mounts.c
init/do_mounts.c renamed from init/do_mounts.c~a +1 -0
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ static dev_t __init try_name(char *name,
 	/*
 	 * The format of dev is now %u:%u -- see print_dev_t()
 	 */
+	printk("scanning `%s'\n", buf);
 	if (sscanf(buf, "%u:%u", &maj, &min) == 2)
 		res = MKDEV(maj, min);
 	else
_
Also take a close look at the dmesg output, make sure that all the devices and partitions are appearing in the expected places.

Andrew Morton

2003-07-28 22:14 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 5 lines · Shawn

Thank you, I didn't look very closely at the patch (really at all).
The one thing making me think I had it right with "2105" was that the kernel did seem to grok it as (33,5).

I don't understand. Are you saying that you now have it working? If so, how?

Sorry, I see now I was quite vague, and was still a little caffiene deprived. To clarify what I meant by sentence #1:
I should have seen that I ought to use 21:05 from the do_mounts.c patch I applied to -test1-mm2

As far as sentence #2, the boot messages seem to indicate that the kernel understood "root=2105" as referring to (33,5), but still did not mount root. This got me really confused.

As far as having it working, I'm waiting to get home to try your suggestions.

The only other though thing I was trying to convey is that I don't understand why -test1-mm2 with patch works while -test2-mm1 does not.

Quoted 9 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 5 lines · Shawn
Thank you, I didn't look very closely at the patch (really at all).
The one thing making me think I had it right with "2105" was that the kernel did seem to grok it as (33,5).
I don't understand. Are you saying that you now have it working? If so, how?

Shawn

author

2003-07-29 02:04 UTC #5 lore raw

In reply to Andrew Morton

OK, mucho more info (no wonder root=/dev/hde5 no worky):
VP_IDE: (ide_setup_pci_device:) Could not enable device

Found out my on board via pci ide was not getting initialized under -test2-mm1, so I went looking for driver/ide/pci/via82cxxx in the diffs. I found this in the -test2 diff:
- (((u >> i) & 7) < 8))) {
+ (((u >> i) & 7) < 6))) {
...and reversing it did not change anything.

The only other diff I could think might matter to drivers/ide/setup-pci.c
-static unsigned long __init ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif) +static unsigned long ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif) ...which does not look like it should kill my via ide...

I am now totally at my wit's end. Can I be helped now that I got off my fat arse?

Info about my system:
http://www.enodev.com/lspci.txt
http://www.enodev.com/dmesg
http://www.enodev.com/proc-ioports
http://www.enodev.com/proc-interrupts
http://www.enodev.com/proc-iomem
http://www.enodev.com/proc_sex.html

Quoted 9 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 5 lines · Shawn
Thank you, I didn't look very closely at the patch (really at all).
The one thing making me think I had it right with "2105" was that the kernel did seem to grok it as (33,5).
I don't understand. Are you saying that you now have it working? If so, how?

Andrew Morton

2003-07-29 02:36 UTC #6 lore raw

Quoted 15 lines · Shawn

OK, mucho more info (no wonder root=/dev/hde5 no worky):
VP_IDE: (ide_setup_pci_device:) Could not enable device
Found out my on board via pci ide was not getting initialized under -test2-mm1, so I went looking for driver/ide/pci/via82cxxx in the diffs. I found this in the -test2 diff:
(quoted diff) +1 -1
-                                    (((u >> i) & 7) < 8))) {
+                                    (((u >> i) & 7) < 6))) {
...and reversing it did not change anything.
The only other diff I could think might matter to
drivers/ide/setup-pci.c
(quoted diff) +1 -1
-static unsigned long __init ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif)
+static unsigned long ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif)

Quoted 2 lines

...which does not look like it should kill my via ide...

OK, looks like breakage at the PCI level: pci_enable_device_bars() is failing; something below pcibios_enable_device().

What was the most recent kernel which works?

Shawn

author

2003-07-29 04:44 UTC #7 lore raw

-test1-mm2. Hadn't tried any -bk? in between.

Won't have time to do much tonight or tomorrow before evening, but I'll test what I can.

Quoted 23 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 15 lines · Shawn
OK, mucho more info (no wonder root=/dev/hde5 no worky):
VP_IDE: (ide_setup_pci_device:) Could not enable device
Found out my on board via pci ide was not getting initialized under -test2-mm1, so I went looking for driver/ide/pci/via82cxxx in the diffs. I found this in the -test2 diff:
(quoted diff) +1 -1
-                                    (((u >> i) & 7) < 8))) {
+                                    (((u >> i) & 7) < 6))) {
...and reversing it did not change anything.
The only other diff I could think might matter to
drivers/ide/setup-pci.c
(quoted diff) +1 -1
-static unsigned long __init ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif)
+static unsigned long ide_get_or_set_dma_base (ide_hwif_t *hwif)
Quoted 2 lines
...which does not look like it should kill my via ide...
OK, looks like breakage at the PCI level: pci_enable_device_bars() is failing; something below pcibios_enable_device().
What was the most recent kernel which works?

Shawn

author

2003-07-29 05:32 UTC #8 lore raw

In reply to Andrew Morton

Quoted 8 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 3 lines · Shawn
OK, mucho more info (no wonder root=/dev/hde5 no worky):
VP_IDE: (ide_setup_pci_device:) Could not enable device
OK, looks like breakage at the PCI level: pci_enable_device_bars() is failing; something below pcibios_enable_device().
What was the most recent kernel which works?

Looks like vanilla -test2 passes muster. Boots, etc.

Trying to find pci related snippets in -test2-mm1 patch... io_apic_* in io_}apic.c & mpparse.c, some acpi stuff, drivers/pci/probe.c but that looks like nothing...

I give up... Yet again... My technical depth seems easily tested in this arena.

Andrew Morton

2003-07-29 05:47 UTC #9 lore raw

Quoted 4 lines · Shawn

Quoted 2 lines
What was the most recent kernel which works?
Looks like vanilla -test2 passes muster. Boots, etc.

drat, so I have a dud patch.

The simplest but boringest way to find it is a binary search through the patches. The `series' file holds the patching order. it'd be painful without using the scripts though.

You could try randomly reverting nforce2-acpi-fixes.patch.

Shawn

author

2003-07-29 06:14 UTC #10 lore raw

I fingered the same, but I'll nary have the time till tomorrow eve.

patchectomy, here we come...

Quoted 13 lines · Andrew Morton

Quoted 4 lines · Shawn
Quoted 2 lines
What was the most recent kernel which works?
Looks like vanilla -test2 passes muster. Boots, etc.
drat, so I have a dud patch.
The simplest but boringest way to find it is a binary search through the patches. The `series' file holds the patching order. it'd be painful without using the scripts though.
You could try randomly reverting nforce2-acpi-fixes.patch.