LinuxQuestions.org
Latest LQ Deal: Linux Power User Bundle
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-13-2004, 04:25 PM   #1
Kroenecker
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: The States
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 245

Rep: Reputation: 30
Kernel upgrade...evil ensues


I am trying to use any 2.6 kernel in my LFS system, but I get some funky errors at boot time. First of all, two or three long number/letter sequences are puked out at the top of the regular messages produced at boot. Then I get the following:

fsck.ext2: No such file or directory blah blah....I am told that the superblock might be corrupt.

1) It boots just fine using 2.4.24

2) When I run e2fsck -b (backup superblock as stated by mke2fs -n) -y /dev/yada I am told that the system was not cleanly unmounted and e2fsck then does its magic. But I can run e2fsck again using the same parameters and it tells me again that the disk was not cleanly unmounted. I am confused. Did nothing get fixed?

Extras:

All of my software is above the minimum requirements as stated in the Documenation/Changes directory of the kernel source.

I have my LFS system on a logical partition. Could that cause problems? The disk itself is 120 GB, but I have to assume that as long as the boot loader finds the partition, I should be fine.

At one point I was trying to use the new bttv module while booting under 2.4.24, but the module wouldnt initialize correctly, and I was unable to remove it before halting. My system hung. I powered off and when I rebooted, fsck checked the root partition. To tell the truth in my drive to get that module to work this happened a few times.

Finally, if a superblock is corrupted, then copying the entire system to another partition means that that new partition contains a corrupted superblock too, right?

Any suggestions?

I am tempted to reinstall LFS using 2.6 headers (no I don't think that has anything to do with this necessarily, but...then again I am rather ignorant about this whole business)
 
Old 02-13-2004, 06:14 PM   #2
Kroenecker
Member
 
Registered: May 2003
Location: The States
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 245

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 30
Cool. I fixed my own idiocy. I thought that I would post this anyway.

I simply had not included advanced support for hard disks in my kernel. Thats it! Heh. I have slack installed on my system. It works fine using 2.6.0 and is on the same harddisk. I should have suspected something because at boot time my swap partition was giving me an error too. Anyway I just copied the config file to double check and sure enough I needed support for harddisks for x86 machines.

That would be it.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Act of ultimate evil crashes kernel detly General 12 07-28-2005 04:22 PM
Evil sagem fast or evil mandrake???? edgefield Mandriva 17 01-24-2005 04:22 AM
What first upgrade kernel or upgrade slack 10.0 to current Kelean Slackware 7 01-16-2005 07:54 PM
Added Windows HD to linux box. Trouble ensues. RandallC Linux - Software 14 11-02-2004 07:16 AM
Evil, evil question. x_fire_phly General 5 10-03-2004 04:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration