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.

On Dec 8, 5:55=A0am, __PaTeR <pater.catania1...@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.

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

On 8 Dic, 21:05, Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:55:12 -0800, __PaTeR wrote:
> All ext3 is is ext2 with journaling. =A0You 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

On Dec 8, 3:05=A0pm, Stefan Patric <n...@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 t=
o
> > [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. =A0You 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.