|| ||Greg KH <greg-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A-AT-public.gmane.org> |
|| ||Re: USB storage no-boot regression (bisected) |
|| ||Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:09:47 -0700|
|| ||Linux USB kernel mailing list <linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA-AT-public.gmane.org>,
Alan Stern <stern-nwvwT67g6+6dFdvTe/nMLpVzexx5G7lz-AT-public.gmane.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0-AT-public.gmane.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ-AT-public.gmane.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:35:59PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Like Arjan said, this is because we are initializing faster now, and
> > things are a bit more asynchronous. Use the root_delay boot option,
> > that's what I use for my USB-based systems, and have not had a problem
> > with that at all.
> Is that solution really scalable to every user with a regression severe
> enough it prevents them from booting?
> When did regressions become an acceptable tradeoff for speed?
So, we aren't allowed to go faster?
What happens when you buy a new box with more USB host controllers and a
faster processor? Same problem.
> This system boots just fine under kernel 2.6.27, 2.6.26, 2.6.25, and so
> on. Switch the kernel to 2.6.28, and it no longer boots. A regression
> cannot get more clear than that.
> Maybe this commit should have been accompanied by one that checks "root=" ?
How would that be accomplished?
The issue is that you were just lucky that your machine worked properly
previously. My boxes with the same type of setup didn't, so I quickly
realized what the root delay boot option was for. You need to just do
the same thing here, there's nothing else we can do.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
to post comments)