Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Kernel 2.6.6, fs's not supported


pyr0r0ck3r
06-10-2004, 01:36 AM
I'm running a Slack box, with slack's 2.6.6 generic testing kernel installed, and I want to just do a regular kernel upgrade to 2.6.6, as I have an Athlon64, and I want to see how the code for the x86_64 CPUs works.

So I installed 2.6.6. When I rebooted, I get an error telling me that not only is the ext3 fs not supported by the kernel, neither is the ntfs (and, as I find out later, neither is iso, or udf, or basically anything). So I think ok, I'm an idiot, I forgot to enable ext3 (et. al) options (I chose to ignore the fact that /root was mounted as ext3). Well, I look at my config file, and, as it turns out, I'm not as stupid as I think - everything is enabled correctly.

to truncate a much longer and boring story, many attempts later, I'm still having no luck, and having to revert back to slack's 2.6.6, which I don't like doing. The kernel compiles fine on my 2nd comp. See below for stuff I've tried


Stuff I've tried already:
1. Re-compiling on computer 1 (Athlon64 3400+) with K8 (Athlon64) and with i386 , neither of which worked


2. Compiling on computer 2 (Athlon T-Bird 1.40 with K7 (Athlon) and with K8m, and copying bzImage and System.map to computer 1. This didn't work, which leads me to think there's maybe a compile error in computer 1, somewhere.

3. Compiled on computer 2, physically removed hard drive, booted from said hard drive, copied all files from said hard drive to computer 1, then booted from computer 1 again. This works, but its a pain in the arse, and I already had to do this for the SATA to work (another long story). I'd like to avoid it if possible, because then I have to recompile computer 2's kernel again.

Where Stuff Is:
/boot/System.map: Symlink to /boot/System.map-2.6.6-x84_64

/boot/vmlinuz: Symlink to /boot/bzImage-2.6.6-x84_64

/boot/config: Symlink to /boot/config--2.6.6-x84_64

/usr/src/linux: Symlink to /usr/src/linux-2.6.6

Sorry bout the long post, but too much info is better than too little, eh? :D

hard candy
06-10-2004, 05:29 AM
Did you enable these as modules or compiled into the kernel? If they are modules, enable them to be compiled into the kernel.

pyr0r0ck3r
06-10-2004, 01:37 PM
nope, its all compiled into the kernel

JThundley
06-10-2004, 02:15 PM
I heard that a lot of features and filesystems just plain don't work for 64bit stuff yet. I'd do some more research on the subject if I were you.

pyr0r0ck3r
06-10-2004, 03:11 PM
If that were the case, I would think that the slack kernel for 2.6.6 wouldn't work either, no?

bwkaz
06-10-2004, 10:16 PM
It will work if Slack compiled it in 32-bit emulation mode (-m32 passed to gcc), or patched it to work in native 64-bit mode. ;)