Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:17 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > > please cc netdev on network issues. > > yes. > > >> Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨ > >> Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose debug info unavailable¨ > >> illegal operation: 0001 Ý#1¨ > > > >

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Cedric Le Goater
>> that helped going a little further in the boot process but we then have >> a network issue when bringing the network interface up : > > please cc netdev on network issues. yes. >> Bringing up interface eth0: Ý cut here ¨ >> Kernel BUG at 0002 Ýverbose d

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Cedric Le Goater
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: >>> This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg >>> moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into >>> the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it >>>

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Andrew Morton
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:16:16 +0200 Cedric Le Goater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > >> Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > >>> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: > Sig

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 11:16 +0200, Cedric Le Goater wrote: > > This is the vmlinux.lds.S problem. The cleanup patch from Sam Ravnborg > > moved the __initramfs_start and __initramfs_end symbols into > > the .init.ramfs section. This is in itself not a problem, but it > > surfaced a bug: there is n

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Cedric Le Goater
Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: >> Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): >>> Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked. After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-19 Thread Martin Schwidefsky
On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 15:31 -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: > > > Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked. > > > After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that > >

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-18 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Christian Borntraeger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: > > Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked. > > After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that > > git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :( > > (Frown bc i

Re: 2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-18 Thread Christian Borntraeger
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2007 schrieb Serge E. Hallyn: > Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked. > After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that > git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :( > (Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0 > > Symptom is: > "Ca

2.6.23-mm1 s390 driver problem

2007-10-18 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Sigh, well this turned out less informative than I'd liked. After bisecting 2.6.23 to 2.6.23-mm1, I found that git-s390.patch is the one breaking my s390 boot :( (Frown bc it's a conglomeration of patches0 Symptom is: "Cannot open root device "dasdd2" or unknown-block(94,14)" even though d