Fedora Installation :: Boot Any Current Kernel Without The Nolapic Flag On ICH8-based Intel T7300 Systems?
Jun 16, 2009
Is there a way to boot any current kernel without the nolapic flag on ICH8-based intel T7300 systems? This system works fine with the last 2.26 kernel from FC8, but due to EOL of the security updates I tried to install FC11 and FC10. The first sign of trouble is that their installation only works with acpi=off or nolapic options. As those options disable either fan-control or the second cpu-core I consider them undesirable. Is there a recent correctly working kernel available? Or do I have to downgrade to a distribution that uses a 2.26 kernel?
I have installed the fedora 14, but there is no kernel source tree.I read the doc "building a custom kernel".But I don't want to rebuild a new kernel.I just want to install the source tree of current kernel.Could someone tell me the way?
Well, when I run alsaconf, it finds my 82801H and I go on to setting it up, it says it will run, but it doesnt run.
Quote:
Now ALSA is ready to use.
For adjustment of volumes, use your favorite mixer.
But my song don't work, ..... works, but no sound in that, and i have tried running alsamixer to raise the volume to the peak.
I have a vague idea that, this sound card has difficulty in linux but all I get is 3 year old patches for gutsy gibbon and fixes that are non-slackware so I dont have the files and what not.
I have been trying, but never seem to understand why it says it works when it doesnt work.
Oh turns out, from thinkwiki, [url]
Its AD1984 actually, and it didn't work on 2.6.24.2 mine is 2.6.29.2 .
On Debian, if I want to compile some package X myself, but I don't want to spend time hunting down and installing its dependencies, I can issue the following command:
Code: apt-get build-dep X
And apt (so long as it knows about package X) will install all the dependencies for me.Does the yum package manager on RedHat-based systems have a similar feature?
Added an SSD (dev/sdc) and decided to move some less often changed directories there. Started with /usr and /boot, leaving / on a primary in the first drive, for now. All started ok, and my changed fstab mounted the right ones, and the system works.
However, grub is actually using the original /boot on / on sda1. I cannot see any way to change this. (Which makes it sorta hard to update the kernel
From grub:
Okay, since it has two choices, I tried to tell it which one to use. But, grub> root (hd2,5) does nothing.
Disk /dev/sda:
what I seem to recall, grub doesn't care about the boot flag on the disk. Nor does it care about primary vs. logical (except GNU doc says "makeactive" only works on a primary?).
The GNU doc also indicates that it looks for a directory /boot on the partition, so if you're mounting a partition as /boot, it also needs to contain a /boot directory under it. Tried that, but no change.
Is my problem the logical partition? Does that prevent "grub> root" from changing it? I'm afraid to wipe out the old /boot and find that I can't start up.
Having already borked my system once while deciding to nstall Fedora 10 under the influence of a false sense of bravado, alcohol induced, I thought I should ask for a little insight before trying things again. Once I get my system fixed and before consuming alcohol that is.Short version:I thought Id be smart and mount the /home partition I use for openSUSE as /home for Fedora, I mean that why I made /home it own partition right? Well, thatwhen the alcohol took over and I thought I be rilliant(not so much) and just use my SUSE username for Fedora too, since, you know,e already got all my files and settings stored there.
Thus my request for the answer on how to correctly use the same /home partition across multiple OS installations; with the preferred goal of retaining access to email folders, various files, games (WINE) and such no matter what distro I�m using. Would it really be as simple as just not using the same user name for more than one distro? What addtional issues does that solve/create
Are Intel wireless cards compatible with non-intel-based laptops? In my case I wish to upgrade the current Atheros-based mini pci express wifi card with the Intel 4965agn. It is an Asus 4520 with an AMD Athlon X2 processor and nvidia nForce chipset.
I've just installed clean copies of both VirtualBox v4.0.8 and Fedora 15. Now I have followed the instructions here : [url] to install the latest VBox guest additions.
Each time I try I get the following message:
The headers for the current running kernel were not found. If the following module compilation fails then this could be the reason. The missing package can be installed with yum install kernel-devel-2.6.38.8-32.fc15.i686.PAE.
However, if I run that command I am told there is no such package available. The guest addition installer continues seemingly OK, but after a restart they are not loaded.
I've just moved to Fedora from Ubuntu due to major issues with its new version.
Both systems connected in same LAN based network . Both WAN live ips are connected through different modems. Problem is that , no system is able to ping or connect with other system with Live ip , though they are able to connect through LAN ip and both systes are accessable and also able to browse internet (google etc..) Ping error :-- Destination Host Unreachable.
Currently I have a dual boot Win 7 / Fedora 14 on my Dell Inspiron 1546. After being unable to upgrade to F15 I think it's time to try something different like Ubuntu 11.04. I'd like to format all the Linux partitions, install Ubuntu there and being able to boot to Win 7 from Grub (just like I currently do with Fedora). Can I just go ahead and install like usual, or is there anything else I should consider? Do you think Ubuntu will have a problem finding Win7?
I use a pretty fresh installed RHEL 5.4, which should be very similar to Fedora. After the basic installation I installed xen and xen-kernel via yum with no errors. I can select the xen-kernel at boot time. But after booting the normal kernel shows up.
Does anyone have any experience with the Atom processor line? How do they compare single core to single core, dual core to dual core with other Intel and Amd chips? Do they work well with linux, or are there hardware issues?
I've been using Linux (Fedora) since 2005 (when I happily abandoned Windows) and loved every minute of it. No installation or other unresolvable problems. But now, I am totally stuck. A month ago, they just gave me a new desktop in the office: Dell Optiplex 960 with the Intel Core 2 Duo vPro chip. So I waited for Fedora 11 to come out, burned the x86-64 Install Media on a DVD, repartitioned the hard drive like I always do on new Windoze machines, and began installing. The install process gets to this announcement and stops:
mounting /tmp as tmpfs... done Then, after a 5-minute wait, if I push the power button on the computer for a hard reboot, then it says:
running install running /sbin/loader and then stalls for good. Then all I can do is hard-reboot again.
So, out of curiosity (and for other reasons), I tried booting the machine from other linux disks: Knoppix, and SystemRescue (www.sysresccd.org). They all stall at different points. The funny thing is that both Fedora 11 x86-64 and SystemRescue happily boot on my personal one-year-old Lenovo T61 Intel Centrino Duo VPro laptop.
I get a feeling that somehow the Intel Core 2 Duo vPro is causing the problem. I also think that there is got to be someone else out there who either had this problem, or was able to install F11 on similar Dell box. Google search did not produce actionalbe answers for me.
After the bunch of updates with current, my custom kernel (2.6.33) can't boot.
The error is: /sbin/e2fsck: No such file or directory while trying to open /dev/sda6
The superblock could not be read or does not describe a correct ext2 filesystem. If the device is valid and it really contains an ext2 filesystem (and not swap or ufs or something else), then the superblock is corrupt, and you might try running e2fsck with an alternate superblock: e2fsck -b 8193 <device>
The /dev/sda6 is ext4 and is ok since it can boot with official huge smp kernel 2.6.33.
My custom kernel can boot before this bunch of updates in current. What i missing in kernel?
I recently install 64-bit OpenSuse 11.3, the first time I'd used Suse 64-bit - I have to say it has been all good so far, which is great. However, today I was experimenting with a tool that tests vulnerabilities which should be remedied if using an NX capable processor. I am running 2.6.34.7-0.5-desktop on an Intel Core i7. I downloaded a 64-bit compatible version of paxtest from :
[URL]
Running it I was surprised to see that the NX capabilities of the CPU do not appear to be honored. Here are my results:
PaXtest - Copyright(c) 2003,2004 by Peter Busser <peter@adamantix.org>
Released under the GNU Public Licence version 2 or later
From my understanding, NX was one of the big deals a few years back and was a main feature provided by the PAE kernel. I would have thought the default 64-bit kernel would have included NX support. I also thought per NX bit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that NX support has been in the kernel since 2.6.8 I looked in config-2.6.34.7-0.5-desktop but did not see anything related to NX/XD config wise, other than DEBUG_NX_TEST What am I missing here? Shouln't this test fail in the Executable [bss, stack, etc.] tests on 64-bit with a NX capable processor?
Just a little background I have a sony vaio VPCZ119X laptop and have been struggling to get all components working under linux especially the intel graphics. I saw that once I upgraded to the latest available kernel release which currently is 2.6.37 rc7. The intel graphics is working, but sometimes when I boot I get a blank/black screen but seems to be lit up. All other functions seem working so for example I am able to login etc just that I dont see anything on the screen.
I have tried the following so far to identify the issue or isolate it:
- Switching to the console screens has no effect, still the black / blank screen.
- Restarting the system does not always immediately get the screen working, sometimes it takes a couple of reboots before the screen is available
- I have a switchable graphics with nVidia I never get this problem when I use the nvidia driver
- I have tried closing the lid etc as suggested in the below post without any change in output, will try further as there are other options available as well The "Black Screen" on Boot I see one difference between both the Xorg log files but I am not able to reason out why this happens hence I will just supply the files here and try not to theorize.
Xorg.0.log - This was the log output when I got the X display working Xorg.o.log.old - This was the log output when the X display was black/blank Also to highlight that I am using the latest kernel release that is still being tested I guess so maybe it is also a bug in the kernel?
I switched today to slackware-current on one of my desktops to play with it and ran directly into a problem.
Since ages my lilo.conf has two entries for slackware. One for runlevel 3 and one for runlevel 4.
Code:
Since the upgrade this is no more possible because I get a kernel panic as soon as udevadm trigger is called. The stack says something about an unknown boot option. Because that i removed the append lines from my lilo.conf and i was able to boot the system. The crash happens when udev is called from within the ramdisk and afterwards. I tried both.
My question is now. Is this a bug in udev or expected? I have this setup since at least 5 years and had never problems with that. What do I have to do to be able to select the runlevel at boot time?
I want to keep my current Kernel (I wanted to keep the last one but read on... lol) Why? Fedora is stable as a rock right now and so is GNOME
Now: 2 updates ago I thought I was cool and I did this: nano /etc/yum.conf and I added.... this: exclude=kernel* nvidia*
But right after the next update.... all hell broke loose.... X errors and more... no need for details since I used tty2 to uncomment the "exclude" in yum.conf... updated and ALL is well and VERY stable (good job to Fedora.... it wasn't your fault... I just know I didn't exclude enough )
"What do I need to exclude in yum.conf if I want to keep the current Kernel as well as Nvidia driver while keeping everything updated besides "kernel* and besides "nvidia* packages"? I know I missed a dependency and that upgrade broke the "old"
I just did an update on my Debian system and it was very long. I'd like to know now, after the upgrades have already been applied, which packages were upgraded and which were not.
I'm Redhat 5 user, and I want to implement Kernel-based Virtual Machine. I tried too much search in google but I cant find the perfect instruction regarding it.
Which is the current stable version of kernel in fedora 10 and how can I installed because right now I have unstable kernel: uname -a Linux blind 2.6.29.3-60.fc10.x86_64 #1 SMP Sat May 9 04:18:14 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
I just want to get back to latest stable kernel of fedora 10. I'm not able from the grub to choose an older because there are only kernels for fedora 9. The problem was that previously I used fedora 9 however I upgrade it but it was still with kernel of fedora 9 so I pick it the unstable of fedora 10 and I installed it. Right now I just want to get back to current version of kernel in fedora 10 so I can upgrade it to fedora 11.
I have Win7 and ubuntu installed on the same PC. Win7 was installed first, after I installed GRUB from Ubuntu, Win7 is not listed as a second option to boot. FYI, On the same PC I had Win7 and Debian (before changing from Debian to Ubuntu) and GRUB from Debian was showing Win7 as second option for boot. Ubuntu was installed on the same partitions as Debian. (For Win7 I have 2 partitions one 100M-system reserved and one 30G; both on NTFS). I have: Linux ubuntu 2.6.28-18-generic #60-Ubuntu SMP Fri Mar 12 04:40:52 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux How to set /boot/grub/menu.ls file to add Win7! (I will do also a fresh install for Ubuntu 64Bit)
Where are the kernel headers for the current kernel of F12KDE? I am trying to configure VMWare player on my machine, and on initial startup I got an error message.
I want to do some modules development in fedora 11, by the command uname -r, I get the current kernel running in my system.
Code: $ uname -r 2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.i686.PAE But when I run the following command
Code: # yum install kernel-devel the package what I installed is kernel-devel-2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.i586 and kernel development directory is /usr/src/kernels/2.6.30.10-105.2.23.fc11.i586
So,the modules I developed can't insert to current running kernel because current is i686 and the compile environment is i586. Is that a bug of fedora 11?
how to edit the new grub.cfg file. For some reason when I start any version of linux none of my usb ports are powered unless I use these boot parameters (noapic nolapic). I have no idea why and I don't really care why, all I want to do is edit grub.cfg so it will incorporate these parameters automatically at startup.
I am preparing to do a fresh install of lucid lynx dual boot with vist@ Currently I am running 9.04 in this configuration. The install guide for Lucid says the new grub2 doesn't support more than 2 operating systems. plus I apparently can't edit it either. Besides vist@ there is a hp recovery partition which has a seperate entry in my existing grub. Does this mean I can't use the lucid desktop disk for a fresh install because I would have 3 operating systems? Lynx, vist@ and HP recovery partition.
I only have two applications left I am using on vist@, but I have no recovery disk, only an old image for my vist@. I am very concerned about this upgrade. 5.04 went smooth and each one since then has been a bit harder. I could not get 9.10 to run and had to go back to 9.04. I hope I am not at the end of the road. How about using grub instead of grub2?
