help: why can't my hand-rolled kernel mount an LVM root FS?

[Andy Whitcroft]

On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 03:49:34AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, manoj.iyer at canonical.com wrote:
> 
> > Maverick will be a lot closer to mainline kernel compared to lucid.
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, manoj.iyer at canonical.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> You could diff the config files to see what you are missing.
> > >>
> > >> Also, look here for help on building Ubuntu kernels:
> > >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/Dev
> > >> http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/daily/
> > >
> > >  ok, i finally have a kernel that boots off of my LVM root fs, by
> > > following the instructions here:
> > >
> > >  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild
> > >
> > > the section, "Using Ubuntu Kernel Configuration," so i'm not going to
> > > mess with success, except to ask, could i use the ubuntu-maverick git
> > > tree instead of ubuntu-lucid?  thanks.
> 
>   confirmation that something worked, and a question.
> 
>   first, i followed the instructions at
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/GitKernelBuild for building a
> fairly recent kernel and it worked, i got my
> "custom"-versioned packages, installed them, booted and came up under
> my new kernel.  excellent.  that's the confirmation.
> 
>   i then tried the same thing using the "ubuntu-maverick" git pull
> instead and, got all the way to the step of compiling the new kernel
> and, very soon into the process (after having selected a version
> string of "-rday" instead of "-custom") got:
> 
> 
> ====== making target debian/stamp/build/kernel [new prereqs: vars]======
> This is kernel package version 12.032.
> The changelog says we are creating 2.6.35-rc4-rday
> However, I thought the version is 2.6.35-rc4-rday+
> exit 1
> make: *** [debian/stamp/build/kernel] Error 1
> 
> 
>   i'm used to seeing that "+" suffix as a version control identifier
> (or something like that).  so ... is there a reason that using the
> lucid tree would work fine, but the maverick tree produces the above?
> 
>   the lucid tree is probably just fine for my purposes, now i'm just
> curious.  and i clearly have much reading to do.
> 

That is a bug in the upstream kernel code, I have a patch in -rc4 which
should mitigate that.

-apw