KERNEL - Thermal, fan, processor and other modules built-in
in [Setup]
|
Prev: Problem when upgrading Debian from stable (lenny) to testing (squeeze)
Next: SOLVED: Linux DNS expiring on Active Directory DNS server
From: __PaTeR on 8 Dec 2009 05:55 Hi all! I recently got the new kernel ( v 2.6.32 ) and i wasn't going to wait for pre-compiled ones, so i tried to compile it by myself... but i have some doubts: i have an eeepc ( 1000HE - the one with ralink card ) and i thought it could be a good idea to compile the thermal, ahci, processor, fan, and battery module within the kernel itself... ( through the * option in menuconfig obviously ) Btw, during the bootup I get some error messages like this: Module thermal not found... etc.. Module battery not found... So... i don't think i did the right thing :\ Or did I, building those modules in the kernel? I thought integrating essential modules in the kernel could be a safe choice for a laptop! And, i also have another question: my boot partition, and so root one, have ext3 filesystem, so, tring to lighten the kernel, i disabled the ext2 fs support ----> Result? I can boot my system only by using initrd file, otherwise i get a panic like "VFS not syncing" or something like that. And... i don't think this is a good thing, afaik initrd is the easiest way out for misconfigured kernels that doesn't support root fs... is it right? Hope you can halp me.
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 8 Dec 2009 08:43 On Dec 8, 5:55 am, __PaTeR <pater.catania1...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all! I recently got the new kernel ( v 2.6.32 ) and i wasn't going > to wait for pre-compiled ones, so i tried to compile it by myself... > but i have some doubts: i have an eeepc ( 1000HE - the one with ralink > card ) and i thought it could be a good idea to compile the thermal, > ahci, processor, fan, and battery module within the kernel itself... > ( through the * option in menuconfig obviously ) > > Btw, during the bootup I get some error messages like this: > Module thermal not found... etc.. > Module battery not found... Do they *work* still? My assumption is that they're still being loaded by init scripts, which are failing. If it's working at all, try rebooting in single user mode and going through the relevant init scripts one at a time to see which is causing issues. (Ask if you're not sure how to do this.) > So... i don't think i did the right thing :\ Or did I, building those > modules in the kernel? > I thought integrating essential modules in the kernel could be a safe > choice for a laptop. Only after it works at all. Start from the default kenrel or the one already known to work in your system. Most sane OS's store that old .config file in /boot/config-[version] or some name like that. > And, i also have another question: my boot partition, and so root one, > have ext3 filesystem, so, tring to lighten the kernel, i disabled the > ext2 fs support ----> Result? I can boot my system only by using > initrd file, otherwise i get a panic like "VFS not syncing" or > something like that. And... i don't think this is a good thing, afaik > initrd is the easiest way out for misconfigured kernels that doesn't > support root fs... is it right? > > Hope you can halp me. I'm not sure, but disabling ext2 may disable ext3 as well. Check in the .config file. The boot loaders themselves are very small, for various reasons, and kept very simple. They historically start by mounting /boot or, if you don't bother with /boot, / as ext2, and then as the rest of the OS becomes available, remount it as ext3. The boot loader, itself, has to have enough smarts to use the available file system of whatever contains /boot, and the boot loader can't load initrd until it's already got /boot mounted. Welcome to the bootstrapping problems of booting operating systems!!!!! My recommendation overall is that you start out simple: use the default kernel, and see if it works. Then lop off or hardload modules only one set at a time, and be prepared to review what other changes in .config were caused by deselecting those modules.
From: Stefan Patric on 8 Dec 2009 15:05 On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:55:12 -0800, __PaTeR wrote: > Hi all! I recently got the new kernel ( v 2.6.32 ) and i wasn't going to > [snip] > > And, i also have another question: my boot partition, and so root one, > have ext3 filesystem, so, tring to lighten the kernel, i disabled the > ext2 fs support ----> Result? I can boot my system only by using initrd > file, otherwise i get a panic like "VFS not syncing" or something like > that. And... i don't think this is a good thing, afaik initrd is the > easiest way out for misconfigured kernels that doesn't support root > fs... is it right? All ext3 is is ext2 with journaling. You need to leave ext2 support in the kernel if you're using ext3. Stef
From: __PaTeR on 9 Dec 2009 04:02 On 8 Dic, 21:05, Stefan Patric <n...(a)thisaddress.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:55:12 -0800, __PaTeR wrote: > All ext3 is is ext2 with journaling. You need to leave ext2 support in > the kernel if you're using ext3. > > Stef Thanks to both! I included ext2 support and found the lines about modules to include during startup: Inittab included /etc/init.d/boot as first, ( and those messages were the firsts to show up ) <-- I don't really know if it'd good english, btw it doesn't matter XD /etc/init.d/boot included /etc/init.d/boot.loadmodules /etc/init.d/boot.loadmodules recalled /etc/sysconfig/kernel .... And there i found the modules init includes at startup ( in a string, so i just removed "thermal", "fan", and "processor" ) I thought it could be useful for someone else! Now i'm rebuilding the kernel, at next reboot i'll let you know :) PS: i could access battery and processor informations through /proc/ cpu/ and /proc/battery, so i think modules work as well in "built-in mode" :P
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia on 9 Dec 2009 16:58
On Dec 8, 3:05 pm, Stefan Patric <n...(a)thisaddress.com> wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:55:12 -0800, __PaTeR wrote: > > Hi all! I recently got the new kernel ( v 2.6.32 ) and i wasn't going to > > [snip] > > > And, i also have another question: my boot partition, and so root one, > > have ext3 filesystem, so, tring to lighten the kernel, i disabled the > > ext2 fs support ----> Result? I can boot my system only by using initrd > > file, otherwise i get a panic like "VFS not syncing" or something like > > that. And... i don't think this is a good thing, afaik initrd is the > > easiest way out for misconfigured kernels that doesn't support root > > fs... is it right? > > All ext3 is is ext2 with journaling. You need to leave ext2 support in > the kernel if you're using ext3. > > Stef It's a bit more than that. ext2 has some serious problems with too many files in one directory, that are significantly eased by ext3. |