kernel26 2.6.35.8-1 (BUG - x86_64 Fails to Boot - see closed bug 20918)
 

On 11/01/2010 03:22 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> We'll see what the dmraid devs have to say. This seems to only effect my jmicron
> controller based box. The other boxes seem OK. So maybe it's a firware dmraid
> error that gets tripped depending the way the kernel loads the dmraid module??
> Who knows...

Just FYI,

After upgrading to device-mapper-2.02.75-1 and reinstalling
kernel26-2.6.35.8-1, the error has completely changed to:

Error 5: Partition table invalid or corrupt

Rebooting to LTS boots just fine :-( We will see what the dmraid guys say.

--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com

Mon Nov 1 22:30:01 2010
Return-path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-43288-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:40:04 +0200
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80]:36629 helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-43288-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1PD0Ee-0003z8-NO
for tom@linux-archive.org; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:40:04 +0200
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 201B1E07F0;
Mon, 1 Nov 2010 20:36:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Delivered-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B852E07A8
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 20:36:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.178.58] (e178097155.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.97.155])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 689D01B419B
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 20:36:14 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4CCF24B1.2010900@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:36:01 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?=
<chithanh@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101030 Gentoo/2.0.10 SeaMonkey/2.0.10
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: mesa.eselect
References: <4CCDEE0C.8040100@gentoo.org> <1288626662.14821.13.camel@localhost.localdomain >
In-Reply-To: <1288626662.14821.13.camel@localhost.localdomain >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Pacho Ramos schrieb:
> Is there any kind of information (doc page, news item...) planned for
> explaining when it's better to switch to gallium3d and when not? For
> example, one of the systems I administrate has a r300 device, but I
> haven't followed at all gallium progress and, I guess, you cannot asume
> most of the people know about all this. Then, I think that, for example=
,
> a news item would be useful to know what drivers should we use.
> =20

I am not aware of official Mesa documentation which explains when=20
Gallium3D should be used rather than classic. Mostly, such information=20
spreads as word of mouth and sometimes as news articles on websites like=20
phoronix.com.

There will be a default set for new eselect-mesa installations, so if=20
you upgrade to mesa-7.9 today you will get the r300 gallium driver and=20
the r600 classic driver. When we set a new default, then a news item to=20
inform users about the change is certainly a good idea.


Best regards,
Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n

kernel26 2.6.35.8-1 (BUG - x86_64 Fails to Boot - see closed bug 20918)
 

Am 01.11.2010 21:35, schrieb David C. Rankin:
> On 11/01/2010 03:22 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>> We'll see what the dmraid devs have to say. This seems to only effect my jmicron
>> controller based box. The other boxes seem OK. So maybe it's a firware dmraid
>> error that gets tripped depending the way the kernel loads the dmraid module??
>> Who knows...
>
> Just FYI,
>
> After upgrading to device-mapper-2.02.75-1 and reinstalling
> kernel26-2.6.35.8-1, the error has completely changed to:
>
> Error 5: Partition table invalid or corrupt
>
> Rebooting to LTS boots just fine :-( We will see what the dmraid guys say.

These error are semi-random, they probably depend on where the kernel
and initramfs files are physically located in the file system. It seems
that about every second kernel works for you.

Grub (and all other bootloaders for that matter) use BIOS calls to
access files on the hard drive - they rely on the BIOS (and in your
case, the jmicron dmraid BIOS) for file access. This access seems to
fail for certain areas on your file system.

kernel26 2.6.35.8-1 (BUG - x86_64 Fails to Boot - see closed bug 20918)
 

On 11/01/2010 04:56 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> These error are semi-random, they probably depend on where the kernel
> and initramfs files are physically located in the file system. It seems
> that about every second kernel works for you.
>
> Grub (and all other bootloaders for that matter) use BIOS calls to
> access files on the hard drive - they rely on the BIOS (and in your
> case, the jmicron dmraid BIOS) for file access. This access seems to
> fail for certain areas on your file system.

Thomas,

I think you are right. This MSI box runs like greased lightning when it boots,
but I think the board/chipset/bios design is weak. I've got the June 2010 bios
installed, but it has not been consistent with kernel changes. Hopefully the
redhat guys will be able to find out why the controller is having init issues.
Thanks for your help and I'll report what I find.


--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
Rankin Law Firm, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
Telephone: (936) 715-9333
Facsimile: (936) 715-9339
www.rankinlawfirm.com