Re: USB storage no-boot regression (bisected)

Greg KH
2009-04-15T05:19:36Z

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.

thanks,

greg k-h