On 12/30/05, Blaisorblade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree. I'm using 2.6.11 kernel, probably not recent enough.
could be like this - got it from my host /etc/fstab:
none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
I did creating them in uml-test:/dev beforehand & changed /dev/ubd/[01] to /dev/ubd[01], passing root=/dev/ubd[01] option to kernel. It didn't work. It says '
Cannot open root device "ubd0" or unknown-block(0,0)', no matter if I pass devfs mount or nomount option.
The only workaround is I have to pass 'root=/dev/ubd/0 devfs=mount'. So confusing.
I saw Debian did mouting devfs in log messages. Debian is still using devfs.
Thanks very much!
--xinhuan
Yep - udev requires sysfs.
But I didn't suggest using udev - however it would work (i.e. create ubd
nodes) however for a recent enough kernel.
I agree. I'm using 2.6.11 kernel, probably not recent enough.
See your distro policy - possibly it must be in /etc/fstab, but I don't know.
could be like this - got it from my host /etc/fstab:
none /sys sysfs defaults 0 0
However, note that /dev/ubd/0, /dev/ubd/1 are not valid when DevFS is not
used. Not at all. You must change them if you want to switch away from DevFS.
Why statically creating them beforehand is not an option? Using udev is a
possible (and correct) road, not the only one.
I did creating them in uml-test:/dev beforehand & changed /dev/ubd/[01] to /dev/ubd[01], passing root=/dev/ubd[01] option to kernel. It didn't work. It says '
Cannot open root device "ubd0" or unknown-block(0,0)', no matter if I pass devfs mount or nomount option.
The only workaround is I have to pass 'root=/dev/ubd/0 devfs=mount'. So confusing.
Either they have the device nodes (/dev/ubdXX) or they use udev (I know
Debian3.0 doesn't) or they do mount none /dev -t devfs (most likely on
Debian).
I saw Debian did mouting devfs in log messages. Debian is still using devfs.
Thanks very much!
--xinhuan
