You compile a 2.4 kernel? Since 2.6 you just invoke make with no argument to buid bzImage and modules, maybe using the -j switch to speed compilation time

I still use make bzImage also. Guess I missed the memo.

Old habits I guess, I still remember the change as I switched distro from Redhat to Slackware when 2.6 was out, it was one on the first distro who used it and I needed a 2.6 compilation for my hardware (and as a bonus kernel compilation no longer required heavy patching!)

1 members found this post helpful.

I've never looked into it. I guess they set up a default make, but either way works. (I have my -j option set as a environment variable upon login.)

I still use menuconfig, even though I know several people prefer one of the GUIs.

OK. I compiled a kernel 5.10.7 yesterday evening and it works. Boots up every time.

Am going to investigate the other ideas in the last couple of posts and see how they work since I am not familiar with them.

Should make for interesting times.

Hi bassmadrigal.
Won't that result in a carbon copy of what doesn't work now on my computer?

If it does make things not work, then you'd mark that bisect as bad and then compile the new bisect that is recommended and try again.

This is how specific commits are able to be determined to be the cause of the bug.

1 members found this post helpful.

Thanks for the encouragement and instructions.

I approach 70 yrs old now. Haven't compiled a kernel in at least 25 years now. I made another try last night. Will try it out today after I return from town (2 hour round trip). Gonna try a bisect now that the fear is gone.

EDIT - I used Pat's config and also the source from the Slackware file tree. You would think that it would produce a carbon copy of his 5.10.7-generic kernel with any flaws in the boot process I have been experiencing *BUT* it boots and it boots every time so what do I make of that?

What should I attempt to bisect? 5.10.1 or something else?

Thanks again
Gordon Gibson