Just to repeat myself:
1. the romfs initrd is fine, loop mounting it works.
2. the romfs initrd is detected at boot time.
3. the romfs initrd is not root mounted at boot time, thus without a root fs
the kernel panics.
4. Doing the same with an ext2 initrd works fine.
Not really nice for systems where the only reason ext2 is compiled in the kernel
is this initrd behaviour.
On 27-Nov-2001 vda wrote:
> I have 2 slackware initrds, one with minix fs on it, other with ext2.
> I compiled 2.4.13 and it panics (can't mount root fs) (don't remember with
> both initrds or only with minix one...).
> I copied .config to 2.4.10, did make oldconfig and all that other reqd makes,
> and it boots both initrds.
> Finally I tried it with 2.4.16pre1 (came .config again)
> and it cannot mount minix initrd.
> ("FAT: bogus sector size 0","VFS: unable to mount root fs")
> I further tested and that initrd CAN be mounted by 2.4.16pre1
> over loopback device with
># mount -o loop /tmp/initrd.minix /mnt/mnt
># mount -t fat,minix -o loop /tmp/initrd.minix /mnt/mnt
> (so we can't blame FAT for first saying "Yes it's fat, don't probe for
> others" and then "it is corrupted, can't use")
> Seems there is some problem with fs detection order during root fs mount.
> (minix isn't tried at all?) However, I failed to grok what affect order of fs
> type guessing at boot... can somebody point me where to look?
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to email@example.com
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
D.O.M. Datenverarbeitung GmbH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/