[gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

Hi All,

This must have been the first time in many years that I cannot boot a kernel.  
I mean I cannot boot it at all!  It just spins the disk at Booting 
kernel . . . 

Since I built this from a 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 .config file using make oldconfig, 
so I am not sure what's gone wrong.  The only relevant change that I recall 
was setting the ACPI for IDE module which I have unset since, but it still 
will not boot.

Any ideas?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Billy McCann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1360 bytes --]

On 7/17/07, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> This must have been the first time in many years that I cannot boot a
> kernel.
> I mean I cannot boot it at all!  It just spins the disk at Booting
> kernel . . .
>
> Since I built this from a 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 .config file using make
> oldconfig,
> so I am not sure what's gone wrong.  The only relevant change that I
> recall
> was setting the ACPI for IDE module which I have unset since, but it still
> will not boot.
>
> Any ideas?
> --
> Regards,
> Mick




Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major version changes
(.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It may be slow and stupid
but it worked like a charm.

Open two root terminals and navigate one to /usr/src/linux (which should be
symlinked to your new sources) and navigate the other to /usr/src/linux-
2.6.20-gentoo-r8.

Run make menuconfig in both terminals.  The root terminal that is in
/usr/src/linux-2.6.20-gentoo-r8 will display your config for your old
kernel.  You'll be able to compare your old configuration to the new one
graphically by simply comparing the menus in the root terminals that you
have side by side.  Well, I used a new tab within xterm, same thing I guess.

LIke I said, maybe slow and stupid, but it worksforme.  :)


Billy Wayne



-- 
#end_transmission#
#earth_creature#

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1796 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 376 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:

> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major version
> changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It may be slow and
> stupid but it worked like a charm.

Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and never had 
a problem like this before.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:
> > Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
> > version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
> > may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm.
>
> Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and
> never had a problem like this before.

Now you know why the kernel devs keep telling you not to do it, heh :-)

alan

-- 
Optimists say the glass is half full,
Pessimists say the glass is half empty,
Developers say wtf is the glass twice as big as it needs to be?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Sergey A. Kobzar]

Hi Billy,

Tuesday, July 17, 2007, 3:20:06 PM, you wrote:

> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
> version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
> may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm. 

> Open two root terminals and navigate one to /usr/src/linux (which
> should be symlinked to your new sources) and navigate the other to
> /usr/src/linux-2.6.20-gentoo-r8.   

> Run make menuconfig in both terminals.  The root terminal that is
> in /usr/src/linux- 2.6.20-gentoo-r8 will display your config for
> your old kernel.  You'll be able to compare your old configuration
> to the new one graphically by simply comparing the menus in the root
> terminals that you have side by side.  Well, I used a new tab within
> xterm, same thing I guess.

> LIke I said, maybe slow and stupid, but it worksforme.   


Hmm, I thought 'make oldconfig' does same things.
Am I wrong?


> Billy Wayne

-- 
Sergey

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:20:06 -0500, Billy McCann wrote:

> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major version
> changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It may be slow
> and stupid but it worked like a charm.

2.6.20 to 2.6.21 is not a major version change, it's a minor one, and a
single step minor change at that. 2.4 to 2.6 is a major change when
oldconfig should not be used, but I've been using it since 2.6.verylow
and the only time it caused a problem was when the SATA config was moved
(which oldconfig was never designed to handle).

.20 to .21 (and then .22) had zero problems with oldconfig.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

For Sale: Positronic Brain-Found near S.F.-Needs Work

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1170 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 14:30, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 07:20:06 -0500, Billy McCann wrote:
> > Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major version
> > changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It may be slow
> > and stupid but it worked like a charm.
>
> 2.6.20 to 2.6.21 is not a major version change, it's a minor one, and a
> single step minor change at that. 2.4 to 2.6 is a major change when
> oldconfig should not be used, but I've been using it since 2.6.verylow
> and the only time it caused a problem was when the SATA config was moved
> (which oldconfig was never designed to handle).
>
> .20 to .21 (and then .22) had zero problems with oldconfig.

Thanks Neil, same here with regards to using oldconfig for some years now.  
I've only used 2.4 for a few months and then moved on to 2.6.  Since then 
I've had no problems (with different boxen) until this happened.

It's not as if it starts to load the kernel and then fails.  It just stops 
before then.  Shall I wait for a future version?  Am I the only one here with 
running a PIII that won't boot this kernel?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Albert Hopkins]

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:
> > > Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
> > > version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
> > > may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm.
> >
> > Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and
> > never had a problem like this before.
> 
> Now you know why the kernel devs keep telling you not to do it, heh :-)
> 

I don't know which kernel dev keeps saying that, but I'd recommend
he/she specify what is meant by "major version" since, historically:

2.6.22
^ ^ ^
| | +--- Revision
| +----- Minor version
+------- Major version

And therefore .20 -> .21 would not be considered a "major" version
change by most accounts.

--
Albert W. Hopkins

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 418 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:00:05 +0100, Mick wrote:

> It's not as if it starts to load the kernel and then fails.  It just
> stops before then.  Shall I wait for a future version?  Am I the only
> one here with running a PIII that won't boot this kernel?

Is it possible that your kernel image is corrupt, have you tried building
it again?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

This is the day for firm decisions! Or is it?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 461 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 15:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:00:05 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > It's not as if it starts to load the kernel and then fails.  It just
> > stops before then.  Shall I wait for a future version?  Am I the only
> > one here with running a PIII that won't boot this kernel?
>
> Is it possible that your kernel image is corrupt, have you tried building
> it again?

I've built it twice so far.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1379 bytes --]

Albert Hopkins wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>   
>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
>>>> version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
>>>> may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm.
>>>>         
>>> Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and
>>> never had a problem like this before.
>>>       
>> Now you know why the kernel devs keep telling you not to do it, heh :-)
>>
>>     
>
> I don't know which kernel dev keeps saying that, but I'd recommend
> he/she specify what is meant by "major version" since, historically:
>
> 2.6.22
> ^ ^ ^
> | | +--- Revision
> | +----- Minor version
> +------- Major version
>
> And therefore .20 -> .21 would not be considered a "major" version
> change by most accounts.
>
> --
> Albert W. Hopkins
>
>   

I have used oldconfig for years and have not had any problems with it
either.  I never went as far as going from a 2.4 kernel to a 2.6 kernel
though.  I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work.  I see no reason why this
shouldn't work since so many of us have done it before without a problem. 

Maybe you missed something simple?  I know it's the simple things that
get me a lot.

Dale

:-)  :-)  :-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1987 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Billy Wayne McCann]

Albert Hopkins wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:
>>>> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
>>>> version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
>>>> may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm.
>>> Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and
>>> never had a problem like this before.
>> Now you know why the kernel devs keep telling you not to do it, heh :-)
>>
> 
> I don't know which kernel dev keeps saying that, but I'd recommend
> he/she specify what is meant by "major version" since, historically:
> 
> 2.6.22
> ^ ^ ^
> | | +--- Revision
> | +----- Minor version
> +------- Major version
> 
> And therefore .20 -> .21 would not be considered a "major" version
> change by most accounts.
> 
> --
> Albert W. Hopkins

Thanks for correcting my nomenclature, Albert.  I too was wanting to use
oldconfig for upgrading my kernel from .20 to .21, but decided not to
after reading the recommendation of the Gentoo Kernel Upgrade Guide, the
relevant portion of which I have pasted below. Perhaps this applied only
to the specific example used.

My purpose for pasting this into this discussion is three-fold: to show
why I said what I did, to hopefully dispel the notion that I merely made
this all up, and to discuss the relevance of the pasted text itself.

I apologize for being off-topic and hope that Mick finds himself a
working kernel config soon.  :)


Billy Wayne

=====================

(Note the the second and third sentences of the second paragraph.)

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kernel-upgrade.xml

10. Advanced: Using your old kernel .config to configure a new one

It is sometimes possible to save time by re-using the configuration file
from your old kernel when configuring the new one. Note that this is
generally unsafe -- too many changes between every kernel release for
this to be a reliable upgrade path.

The only situation where this is appropriate is when upgrading from one
Gentoo kernel revision to another. For example, the changes made between
gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r1 and gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r2 will be very small,
so it is usually OK to use the following method. However, it is not
appropriate to use it in the example used throughout this document:
upgrading from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9. Too many changes between the official
releases, and the method described below does not display enough context
to the user, often resulting in the user running into problems because
they disabled options that they really didn't want to.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Using oldconfig and kernel revisions ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Billy Wayne McCann]

Right after I sent my previous mail, it hit me that maybe a better topic
than just "OT" would be better.

Billy Wayne McCann wrote:
> Albert Hopkins wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 15:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 13:20, Billy McCann wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mick.   From what I understand, using oldconfig for major
>>>>> version changes (.20 -> .21) is a bad idea.  Here's what I did.  It
>>>>> may be slow and stupid but it worked like a charm.
>>>> Sure, but I have been using oldconfig for previous major changes and
>>>> never had a problem like this before.
>>> Now you know why the kernel devs keep telling you not to do it, heh :-)
>>>
>> I don't know which kernel dev keeps saying that, but I'd recommend
>> he/she specify what is meant by "major version" since, historically:
>>
>> 2.6.22
>> ^ ^ ^
>> | | +--- Revision
>> | +----- Minor version
>> +------- Major version
>>
>> And therefore .20 -> .21 would not be considered a "major" version
>> change by most accounts.
>>
>> --
>> Albert W. Hopkins
> 
> Thanks for correcting my nomenclature, Albert.  I too was wanting to use
> oldconfig for upgrading my kernel from .20 to .21, but decided not to
> after reading the recommendation of the Gentoo Kernel Upgrade Guide, the
> relevant portion of which I have pasted below. Perhaps this applied only
> to the specific example used.
> 
> My purpose for pasting this into this discussion is three-fold: to show
> why I said what I did, to hopefully dispel the notion that I merely made
> this all up, and to discuss the relevance of the pasted text itself.
> 
> I apologize for being off-topic and hope that Mick finds himself a
> working kernel config soon.  :)
> 
> 
> Billy Wayne
> 
> =====================
> 
> (Note the the second and third sentences of the second paragraph.)
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/kernel-upgrade.xml
> 
> 10. Advanced: Using your old kernel .config to configure a new one
> 
> It is sometimes possible to save time by re-using the configuration file
> from your old kernel when configuring the new one. Note that this is
> generally unsafe -- too many changes between every kernel release for
> this to be a reliable upgrade path.
> 
> The only situation where this is appropriate is when upgrading from one
> Gentoo kernel revision to another. For example, the changes made between
> gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r1 and gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r2 will be very small,
> so it is usually OK to use the following method. However, it is not
> appropriate to use it in the example used throughout this document:
> upgrading from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9. Too many changes between the official
> releases, and the method described below does not display enough context
> to the user, often resulting in the user running into problems because
> they disabled options that they really didn't want to.
> 
> 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Peter Alfredsen]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 15:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:00:05 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > > It's not as if it starts to load the kernel and then fails.  It just
> > > stops before then.  Shall I wait for a future version?  Am I the only
> > > one here with running a PIII that won't boot this kernel?
> >
> > Is it possible that your kernel image is corrupt, have you tried building
> > it again?
>
> I've built it twice so far.

If I were you, I'd try 2.6.22. Out of the vague fog of memory I glance the 
image of a couple of regressions that haven't been fixed in .21 that were 
fixed in .22. 

-- 
/PA
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Using oldconfig and kernel revisions ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Stroller]

On 17 Jul 2007, at 21:11, Billy Wayne McCann wrote:
>
>> It is sometimes possible to save time by re-using the  
>> configuration file
>> from your old kernel when configuring the new one. Note that this is
>> generally unsafe -- too many changes between every kernel release for
>> this to be a reliable upgrade path.
>>
>> The only situation where this is appropriate is when upgrading  
>> from one
>> Gentoo kernel revision to another. For example, the changes made  
>> between
>> gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r1 and gentoo-sources-2.6.9-r2 will be very  
>> small,
>> so it is usually OK to use the following method. However, it is not
>> appropriate to use it in the example used throughout this document:
>> upgrading from 2.6.8 to 2.6.9.

Whilst I'll admit to having been caught out when upgrading from  
2.6.19 to 2.6.20, I can't imagine that many people go through the  
entire list of options in `make menuconfig` every time they upgrade  
the kernel.

I tend to run `emerge sync once a week or once a month, and I ignore  
trivial kernel version bumps (-r2 to -r3 &c), so the only time I  
upgrade is in exactly the circumstances described.

For a long time I copied the old .config file over verbatim and it's  
only recently I even realised to use `make oldconfig`. This apparent  
change in the way the options are laid out between the 2.6.19 and  
2.6.20 config files is the first time it's failed on me in over 3  
years, so I don't see the need to be overly paranoid about it.

Stroller.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 866 bytes --]

On Tuesday 17 July 2007 22:02, Peter Alfredsen wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007, Mick wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 July 2007 15:46, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:00:05 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > > > It's not as if it starts to load the kernel and then fails.  It just
> > > > stops before then.  Shall I wait for a future version?  Am I the only
> > > > one here with running a PIII that won't boot this kernel?
> > >
> > > Is it possible that your kernel image is corrupt, have you tried
> > > building it again?
> >
> > I've built it twice so far.
>
> If I were you, I'd try 2.6.22. Out of the vague fog of memory I glance the
> image of a couple of regressions that haven't been fixed in .21 that were
> fixed in .22.

Thank you Peter, I'll have a go at 2.6.22 when I get a quiet moment to see if 
it fires up.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Albert Hopkins]

On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:24 -0500, Billy Wayne McCann wrote:
> My purpose for pasting this into this discussion is three-fold: to
> show
> why I said what I did, to hopefully dispel the notion that I merely
> made
> this all up, and to discuss the relevance of the pasted text itself.
> 
> I apologize for being off-topic and hope that Mick finds himself a
> working kernel config soon.  :) 

I hope he does as well.

Completely on a tangent from the OP, but I would like to argue *for* the
use of oldconfig when upgrading kernels. I read the relevant part of the
document and I'm not going to contest it, it does not seem to indicate
that "oldconfig" when upgrading kernels doesn't work, but that
"oldconfig" might somehow confuse the user into not selecting a kernel
option that they need.  OTOH if said person is using an "old config"
that worked then most, if not all, of the "needed" options are already
selected.  But what are the alternatives?  The document does not cite
any. I can think of four choices:

     1. "make menuconfig" and create a new .config from scratch.  From
        my own personal experience I know I'm *much* more likely to
        forget a needed kernel option starting from scratch than from an
        old config.
     2. Copy old .config and "make".  In this case you miss any new
        kernel options.
     3. copy old .config and "make menuconfig".  In this case you're
        much more likely to miss the *new* kernel options because they
        don't stand out from the old ones.
     4. Copy old .config and "make oldconfig".  Here you get prompted
        for any new kernel options, plus you keep all your old ones when
        feasible.

Or, if you're lucky enough to be using Gentoo, you could run genkernel.
However browsing the genkernel sources it seems to do 2, 3 or 4
depending on what options it is given. 2 seems relevant only if you want
to upgrade your kernel but not take advantage of any new features.  3 is
prone to overlooking the aforementioned features.  So that leaves 1
which is ridiculous and 4 which just about every other document found on
the net about upgrading kernels recommends, including the Greg
Kroah-Hartman's _Linux Kernel in a Nutshell_ (Greg being both a Kernel
and Gentoo developer).

I think that in general, and when used correctly, oldconfig is in fact a
very useful tool when performing kernel upgrades, but of course YMMV.


--
Albert W. Hopkins

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Billy McCann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2804 bytes --]

On 7/17/07, Albert Hopkins <marduk@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 14:24 -0500, Billy Wayne McCann wrote:
> > My purpose for pasting this into this discussion is three-fold: to
> > show
> > why I said what I did, to hopefully dispel the notion that I merely
> > made
> > this all up, and to discuss the relevance of the pasted text itself.
> >
> > I apologize for being off-topic and hope that Mick finds himself a
> > working kernel config soon.  :)
>
> I hope he does as well.
>
> Completely on a tangent from the OP, but I would like to argue *for* the
> use of oldconfig when upgrading kernels. I read the relevant part of the
> document and I'm not going to contest it, it does not seem to indicate
> that "oldconfig" when upgrading kernels doesn't work, but that
> "oldconfig" might somehow confuse the user into not selecting a kernel
> option that they need.  OTOH if said person is using an "old config"
> that worked then most, if not all, of the "needed" options are already
> selected.  But what are the alternatives?  The document does not cite
> any. I can think of four choices:
>
>      1. "make menuconfig" and create a new .config from scratch.  From
>         my own personal experience I know I'm *much* more likely to
>         forget a needed kernel option starting from scratch than from an
>         old config.
>      2. Copy old .config and "make".  In this case you miss any new
>         kernel options.
>      3. copy old .config and "make menuconfig".  In this case you're
>         much more likely to miss the *new* kernel options because they
>         don't stand out from the old ones.
>      4. Copy old .config and "make oldconfig".  Here you get prompted
>         for any new kernel options, plus you keep all your old ones when
>         feasible.
>
> Or, if you're lucky enough to be using Gentoo, you could run genkernel.
> However browsing the genkernel sources it seems to do 2, 3 or 4
> depending on what options it is given. 2 seems relevant only if you want
> to upgrade your kernel but not take advantage of any new features.  3 is
> prone to overlooking the aforementioned features.  So that leaves 1
> which is ridiculous and 4 which just about every other document found on
> the net about upgrading kernels recommends, including the Greg
> Kroah-Hartman's _Linux Kernel in a Nutshell_ (Greg being both a Kernel
> and Gentoo developer).
>
> I think that in general, and when used correctly, oldconfig is in fact a
> very useful tool when performing kernel upgrades, but of course YMMV.
>
>
> --
> Albert W. Hopkins
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
Albert,

Thanks for taking the time to put these thoughts together.  I think I
understand better now.  Much appreciated.


Billy Wayne

-- 
#end_transmission#
#earth_creature#

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3875 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Luigi Pinna]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alle giovedì 19 luglio 2007, Billy McCann ha scritto:
[...]
> >      2. Copy old .config and "make".  In this case you miss any new
> >         kernel options.
[...]

That is no true.
If you copy your old .config and give make, the make asks you for all 
new options (I think "that" is the right one make oldconfig)
Luigi


- -- 
Public key GPG(0xC5CB65CD) on
hkp://pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGoFrg5ZpKrsXLZc0RAmtCAJ9mcJkY7jJ4455T3PJpMbqAgctl5gCgsJyf
fHUfjvA1AkHniGwsgHgy0Hc=
=56DK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Ian Hastie]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 08:49:04 +0200
Luigi Pinna <mailing-gentoo@sailorferris.com> wrote:

> Alle giovedì 19 luglio 2007, Billy McCann ha scritto:
> [...]
> > >      2. Copy old .config and "make".  In this case you miss any
> > > new kernel options.  
> [...]
> 
> That is no true.
> If you copy your old .config and give make, the make asks you for all 
> new options (I think "that" is the right one make oldconfig)

You only get asked for new options if you use the make oldconfig
command.  Just doing a make uses the arch defaults for them.

-- 
Ian.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] OT ( was : Cannot boot 2.6.21-gentoo-r4)

[Albert Hopkins]

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 08:49 +0200, Luigi Pinna wrote:
> That is no true.
> If you copy your old .config and give make, the make asks you for all 
> new options (I think "that" is the right one make oldconfig)
> Luigi 

No. What you seeing is a little different.  If you read the Makefile:

# If .config is newer than include/config/auto.conf, someone tinkered
# with it and forgot to run make oldconfig.
# if auto.conf.cmd is missing then we are probably in a cleaned tree so
# we execute the config step to be sure to catch updated Kconfig files
include/config/auto.conf: $(KCONFIG_CONFIG) include/config/auto.conf.cmd
        $(Q)$(MAKE) -f $(srctree)/Makefile silentoldconfig
[...]

So you're basically running [silent]oldconfig... But, e.g., if you
happen to 

# mv /path/to/old/.config .config
# make

(or similar) then oldconfig doesn't get run and you don't get to choose
new kernel options.  Anyway I still hold that oldconfig is the safe bet.
 
--
Albert W. Hopkins

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list