On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:18:26PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> BTW this is only so if you're using the vanilla 2.4 kernel-source. If
> you're using the Debian kernel-source package then it should be fine.
It'd be dumb to not build from Debian kernel-source, all the current SPARC
kernels in the arc
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:16:02PM +1000, herbert wrote:
>
> In that case please recompile your kernel without cramfs. Otherwise
> it'll destroy anything that doesn't use 8K blocks.
BTW this is only so if you're using the vanilla 2.4 kernel-source. If
you're using the Debian kernel-source packa
On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 05:16:34PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:14:38 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Make sure that it has the same block size as cramfs (which is the same
> > as the page size on your arch). Otherwise the cramfs probing will
> > kill the initrd contents.
>
> Y
On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:14:38 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Make sure that it has the same block size as cramfs (which is the same
> as the page size on your arch). Otherwise the cramfs probing will
> kill the initrd contents.
>
> Of course make sure that ext2 is actually compiled in as well.
It is
Joshua Kwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
>> > >>RAMDISK: Couldn't find valid RAM disk image starting at 0.
>> > >>Freeing initrd memory: 1442 freed
>> > >>cramfs: wrong magic
>>
>> Wait a second. Is this ramdisk really cramfs, or is i
Hope nobody's been waiting for a reply from me on this one... Since I
can't get it to boot, I've got a dead Ultra 5 (well, a couple,
actually), and I really couldn't say what kernel options are included,
or what fs was used for the initial ramdisk. If it helps, though, I'll
poke around on the
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:40:11AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > >>RAMDISK: Couldn't find valid RAM disk image starting at 0.
> > >>Freeing initrd memory: 1442 freed
> > >>cramfs: wrong magic
>
> Wait a second. Is this ramdisk really cramfs, or is it romfs?
Neither. It's gzipped ext2.
--
Joshua
Sun Ultra 1 (uniprocessor UltraSPARC):
Loading initital ramdisk (1477740 bytes at 0x2080 phys 0x40c0 virt)
Sun Ultra Enterprise 2 (dual processor UltraSPARC):
Loading initital ramdisk (1477740 bytes at 0x6080 phys 0x40c0 virt)
Panics with the same message as before:
NET4: Unix domai
> >>RAMDISK: Couldn't find valid RAM disk image starting at 0.
> >>Freeing initrd memory: 1442 freed
> >>cramfs: wrong magic
Wait a second. Is this ramdisk really cramfs, or is it romfs?
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 07:50:44AM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> boot:
> Allocated 8 Megs of memory at 0x4000 for kernel
> Uncompressing image...
> Loaded kernel version 2.4.26
> Loading initial ramdisk (1477459 bytes at 0x10C0 phys, 0x40C0
> virt)...
> Remapping the kernel... Done
>
boot:
Allocated 8 Megs of memory at 0x4000 for kernel
Uncompressing image...
Loaded kernel version 2.4.26
Loading initial ramdisk (1477459 bytes at 0x10C0 phys, 0x40C0
virt)...
Remapping the kernel... Done
Booting Linux
Ben Collins wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 11:21:01PM -0700, Patr
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 11:21:01PM -0700, Patrick Morris wrote:
> For what it's worth, I get the same thing reported earlier when trying
> this image on my Ultra 5:
>
> NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
> RAMDISK: Couldn't find valid RAM disk image starting at 0.
> Freeing initr
For what it's worth, I get the same thing reported earlier when trying
this image on my Ultra 5:
NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux NET4.0.
RAMDISK: Couldn't find valid RAM disk image starting at 0.
Freeing initrd memory: 1442 freed
cramfs: wrong magic
sh-2021: reiserfs_read_super: can n
Joshua Kwan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:46:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Ok, there's a new second.b on sparc-boot.org/pub/testing/. Give that a
> > shot.
>
> Updated images with this second.b are at
>
> http://june.voxel.net/~joshk/d-i/images/2004-05-15
>
> Remem
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 06:46:50AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, there's a new second.b on sparc-boot.org/pub/testing/. Give that a
> shot.
Updated images with this second.b are at
http://june.voxel.net/~joshk/d-i/images/2004-05-15
Remember, the images from gluck.debian.org don't contain a pat
> Loading initial ramdisk ( 1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys, 0x6080 virt)
Ok, there's a new second.b on sparc-boot.org/pub/testing/. Give that a
shot.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.
> Thanks for trying it out. Ben, was that patch supposed to actually fix
> something, or was it just supposed to be informative?
Both.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
Joshua Kwan wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:56:25PM -0600, Peter Karbaliotis wrote:
I also saw this on a Sun Ultra 2.
Sun Ultra 2 UPA/Sbus (2 x UltraSPARC 200 MHz)
...
loaded kernel version 2.4.26
Loading initial ramdisk ( 1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys, 0x6080 virt)
...
RAMDISK: Couldn't find v
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 12:45:34PM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> I tried http://june.voxel.net/~joshk/d-i/images/2004-05-14/drom-mini.iso
> on two machines, an Ultra1 and an Ultra10; both failed, though
> differently.
>
> Ultra1: On this one, I got (modulo any typos)
>
> Loading initial ram
> loaded kernel version 2.4.26
> Loading initial ramdisk ( 1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys, 0x6080 virt)
Crap, silo's printf doesn't support lx or llx. I need to fix that,
because I really need that info.
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion -
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 01:56:25PM -0600, Peter Karbaliotis wrote:
> I also saw this on a Sun Ultra 2.
>
> Sun Ultra 2 UPA/Sbus (2 x UltraSPARC 200 MHz)
> ...
> loaded kernel version 2.4.26
> Loading initial ramdisk ( 1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys, 0x6080 virt)
> ...
> RAMDISK: Couldn't find val
Ben Collins wrote:
Ultra1: On this one, I got (modulo any typos)
Loading initial ramdisk (1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys 022340800 virt) ...
[spinning \/]
Remapping the kernel ... FP Disabled
ok
and I was back to the OpenBoot 'ok' prompt.
This is strange.
Ultra10: On this one, I got m
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Ben Collins wrote:
AD> Ultra10: On this one, I got much further. The kernel was loading,
AD> but failed near the end. The last messages were
AD>
AD> RAMDISK: couldn't find valid ramdisk image starting at 0.
AD> Freeing initrd memory 1443k freed
AD> cramfs: wrong
> Ultra1: On this one, I got (modulo any typos)
>
> Loading initial ramdisk (1477684 bytes at 0x01x phys 022340800 virt) ...
> [spinning \/]
> Remapping the kernel ... FP Disabled
> ok
>
> and I was back to the OpenBoot 'ok' prompt.
This is strange.
> Ultra10: On this one, I
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> [ Sorry for the huge crosspost, but this is a pretty big deal. ]
>
> On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:21:46PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Some people have reported problems with initrd on sparc64. I'm trying to
> > trace that problem (hard, because I can't rep
> I hope that this resolves the issues with SILO and initrd!
Me too!
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
[ Sorry for the huge crosspost, but this is a pretty big deal. ]
On Thu, May 13, 2004 at 04:21:46PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> Some people have reported problems with initrd on sparc64. I'm trying to
> trace that problem (hard, because I can't reproduce it). If you've had
> the problem where silo
27 matches
Mail list logo
