LinuxQuestions.org
Register a domain and help support LQ
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 09-25-2006, 02:33 AM   #1
halfpower
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2005
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 198

Rep: Reputation: 30
Custom Kernel Panic: Unable to mount root fs on 08:11


I compiled a custom kernel. I can't seem to boot this kernel. When I do try to boot I get the message

Code:
Please append a correct "root=" boot option
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:11
I pretty sure lilo is configured correctly. Does anyone know why I am getting this error message? What does 08:11 refer to?
 
Old 09-25-2006, 06:37 AM   #2
hussar
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: Slackware 11.0; Kubuntu 6.06; OpenBSD 4.0; OS X 10.4.10
Posts: 345

Rep: Reputation: 30
You could post your lilo.conf so that we could take a look at it. Other possibilities that you might want to take a look at are whether you have support for the type filesystem you are using compiled into the kernel (ext2, ext3, reiserfs, etc.). You should also check that you have the appropriate drivers for the drive compiled in (IDE, etc.).
 
Old 09-25-2006, 07:37 AM   #3
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,281
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfpower
I compiled a custom kernel. I can't seem to boot this kernel. When I do try to boot I get the message

Code:
Please append a correct "root=" boot option
Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 08:11
I pretty sure lilo is configured correctly. Does anyone know why I am getting this error message? What does 08:11 refer to?
Hi,

As stated you probably forgot to compile your filesystem in the kernel. You can use the initrd to boot the system. You should read the /boot/README.initrd to learn how. You will need to edit your lilo.conf to include the initrd and be sure to update the lilo via the lilo command.
This is covered in the readme.
 
Old 09-25-2006, 03:48 PM   #4
hussar
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: Slackware 11.0; Kubuntu 6.06; OpenBSD 4.0; OS X 10.4.10
Posts: 345

Rep: Reputation: 30
I'm curious. Assuming that the OP's problem is that he doesn't have the filesystem compiled into the kernel, what advantage does configuring initrd and putting together a ramdisk give him over simply compiling the filesystem support into his kernel? Is there an advantage to be had for a "normal user" in going to the trouble of putting an initrd boot together?

Last edited by hussar; 09-25-2006 at 03:49 PM.
 
Old 09-25-2006, 08:04 PM   #5
ryanoa
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Distribution: Slack 10.2 and 11.0
Posts: 102

Rep: Reputation: 15
As a newbie, who had never compiled a kernel, and was afraid to try, I found it easier to build an initrd. Now that I've compiled a few kernels I would always choose to build the filesystem into the kernel. It's just cleaner. If there is a boot speed advantage, it is probably negligable, and not worth the "effort" for the "normal user".

My 2 cents
Ryan
 
Old 09-26-2006, 07:32 AM   #6
onebuck
Moderator
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Midwest USA, Central Illinois
Distribution: SlackwareŽ
Posts: 11,281
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by hussar
I'm curious. Assuming that the OP's problem is that he doesn't have the filesystem compiled into the kernel, what advantage does configuring initrd and putting together a ramdisk give him over simply compiling the filesystem support into his kernel? Is there an advantage to be had for a "normal user" in going to the trouble of putting an initrd boot together?
Hi,

The big advantage is that of not having to re-compile. Especially if you are mixing or experimenting with filesystems. The propagation is not that big of a difference. 'Normal user' , rather broad but no real advantage other than the stated above reason.

Yes, newbies tend to forget to compile the filesystem into the kernel. It is easier for them to get their system via the initrd if the problem is the filesystem omittion.
 
Old 09-26-2006, 07:53 AM   #7
raska
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Aguascalientes, AGS. Mexico.
Distribution: Slackware 13.0 kernel 2.6.29.6
Posts: 816

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsandvik
...It is easier for them to get their system via the initrd if the problem is the filesystem omittion.
I would prefer to double-check everything in the config and recompile again, make is fairly smart and only compiles what it needs
It's a personal taste matter
 
Old 09-26-2006, 12:14 PM   #8
hussar
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: Slackware 11.0; Kubuntu 6.06; OpenBSD 4.0; OS X 10.4.10
Posts: 345

Rep: Reputation: 30
Actually, initrd is what turned me off on SuSE. I was running SuSE 5.x or 6.x, and I didn't realize that they had just started using initrd. It was advantageous for them, because they could configure their install kernels to fit more hardware that way. (Several distros went to initrd at that time, IIRC.) Up to that time, I had been happily compiling my own kernels (2.0.x series), and suddenly they didn't work anymore because I hadn't configured initrd. I got all sanctimonious about them doing something that was good for them as a distributor but "bad" for me as a user, and I switched back to slack.

So much for memory lane. Bottom line, I don't use initrd because I didn't see an advantage in it for a machine with a stable configuration. It just seemed easier to compile in what I needed, and what I didn't need to access my drive during boot became a module. And, the kernel's ability to select and load modules has steadily improved.
 
Old 10-12-2006, 04:39 PM   #9
tp11235
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2005
Location: Somerset, England
Distribution: Gentoo
Posts: 105
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 15
I had the same problem and it was because I had not compiled in support for my IDE chipset during make menuconfig.

Check the settings under ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL Support for your particular chipset.

Without IDE support the kernel cannot run the harddisk.
 
Old 10-12-2006, 06:22 PM   #10
reggie
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Dec 2002
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 16

Rep: Reputation: 0
just for some info

i never had this problem until slackware 11.0. just fixed it though. using default bare.i kernel

i installed from a mounted iso instead of cd. don't know why that should be any different but i had this problem also.

oddly my lilo.conf contained the option "root = /dev/fd2" , hmmmm (I don't even have a floppy drive) so I changed to root = /dev/hda7 (my / partition) and ran 'lilo' - the boot worked. but as stated above i was prompted to run a filesystem check. that wasn't the problem, the problem was that there was no /etc/fstab on my installation for some reason. so just added the filesystems and it works fine

hope this helps us linux noobs
 
  


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
Kernel Panic - Unable to mount root FS Halospree13 Linux - Newbie 5 01-21-2009 03:37 AM
Kernel Panic! Unable to mount root fs... DarkNebula Linux - General 7 10-24-2004 06:38 PM
Kernel Panic, unable mount root fs ShadowLeo Debian 3 06-03-2004 01:03 PM
2.2 --> 2.65: Kernel panic, unable to mount root. gaea Debian 5 04-28-2004 01:10 PM
Kernel panic - unable to mount root fs felecha Linux - General 3 06-17-2002 08:57 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 AM.

Main Menu
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
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration