I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
I have been using 5.18.10
Anybody have any ideas?
Thanks,
David
dwoodyard@rdwoodyard.com writes:
I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
I have been using 5.18.10
Anybody have any ideas?
This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in
journalctl -r -b -1
I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:43 PM Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
dwoodyard@rdwoodyard.com writes:
I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
I have been using 5.18.10
Anybody have any ideas?
This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in
journalctl -r -b -1
I have an old iMac that dual boots Fedora 36 and macOS. Upgrading from 5.19.8 to 5.19.9 fails to boot:
Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounted boot.mount - /boot. Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounting boot-efi.mount - /boot/efi... Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 mount[701]: mount: /boot/efi: unknown filesystem type 'hfsplus'.
Booting 5.19.8 shows:
% df -lHT /dev/sda3 Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda3 hfsplus 630M 34M 597M 6% /boot/efi
My Bell Aliant internet is broken, so have not been able to conduct a proper search for bug reports.
I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
Same here.
Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot of the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not included in the install rpms.
a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it might tell you if the count is significantly different.
Also doing; diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]* would show if the config files controlling module builds was different.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 5:15 PM George N. White III gnwiii@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 9:43 PM Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
dwoodyard@rdwoodyard.com writes:
I am attaching a screen shot to show part of the boot process...
I have searched google the fedora sights with no results.
I have been using 5.18.10
Anybody have any ideas?
This will likely be a waste of time, but, presuming that your previous kernel does boot, that this is a kernel 5.19 issue: boot back into the previous kernel, see if anything interesting shows up in
journalctl -r -b -1
I have an old iMac that dual boots Fedora 36 and macOS. Upgrading from 5.19.8 to 5.19.9 fails to boot:
Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounted boot.mount - /boot. Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 systemd[1]: Mounting boot-efi.mount - /boot/efi... Sep 19 13:02:05 imacf36 mount[701]: mount: /boot/efi: unknown filesystem type 'hfsplus'.
Booting 5.19.8 shows:
% df -lHT /dev/sda3 Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda3 hfsplus 630M 34M 597M 6% /boot/efi
My Bell Aliant internet is broken, so have not been able to conduct a proper search for bug reports.
I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
Same here.
-- George N. White III
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On Sun, 2022-09-18 at 20:42 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I've gone through episodes of having a bad kernel come up. I just remained on the previous kernel, until this got sorted out. As long as you've booted a working kernel "dnf update" is not going to remove it, but just uninstall the oldest possible kernel that can be uninstalled.
Likewise, though fortunately not for a long time. Because of that I usually reconfigure things so that at least 4 kernels are kept on a system, at one stage I kept 6 (and I needed to, after a few rapidfire releases of kernels that didn't play well on my system).
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin rogerheflin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot of the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not included in the install rpms.
a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it might tell you if the count is significantly different.
% find /lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l 4097 % find /lib/modules/5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l 1878
Also doing; diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]* would show if the config files controlling module builds was different.
% diff /boot/config-5.19.[89]* 3c3 < # Linux/x86_64 5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 Kernel Configuration ---
# Linux/x86_64 5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 Kernel Configuration
35c35 < CONFIG_BUILD_SALT="5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64" ---
CONFIG_BUILD_SALT="5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64"
3661c3661 < CONFIG_IWLMEI=m ---
# CONFIG_IWLMEI is not set
IWLMEI pulls in a bunch of modules, but over 2000 seems excessive!
% find /lib/modules/5.19.[89]-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" | grep hfsplus /lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64/kernel/fs/hfsplus/hfsplus.ko.xz % grep -i hfsplus /boot/config-5.19.[89]* /boot/config-5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64:CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS=m /boot/config-5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64:CONFIG_HFSPLUS_FS=m
Looks like the 5-19.9 package installation missed hfsplus.ko, needed for dual boot with macOS. Gnome Software update is showing 5.19.9 as an available update despite the fact that it was installed a few days ago. I updated using dnf on the command-line and the system is now booting 5.19.9. Looks like there was a bad 5.19.9 update that has been fixed.
George N. White III writes:
« HTML content follows »
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:57 PM Roger Heflin <URL:mailto:rogerheflin@gmail.comrogerheflin@gmail.com> wrote:
Someone also reported nosound after 5.19.8 so it sounds like a lot of the modules either weren't built (at all or correct) or were not included in the install rpms.
a "find /lib/modules/kernelversion -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l against it might tell you if the count is significantly different.
% find /lib/modules/5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l 4097 % find /lib/modules/5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64 -name "*ko*" -ls | wc -l 1878
Cannot reproduce here:
[root@traveler modules]# find 5.19.9-200.fc36.x86_64/ -name '*ko*' -ls | wc - l 3970 [root@traveler modules]# find 5.19.8-200.fc36.x86_64 -name '*ko*' -ls | wc -l 4097
Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: kernel x86_64 5.19.9-200.fc36 updates-released-local 262 k kernel-core x86_64 5.19.9-200.fc36 updates-released-local 50 M kernel-modules x86_64 5.19.9-200.fc36 updates-released-local 58 M Removing: kernel x86_64 5.19.6-200.fc36 @updates-released-local 0 kernel-core x86_64 5.19.6-200.fc36 @updates-released-local 92 M kernel-modules x86_64 5.19.6-200.fc36 @updates-released-local 57 M Removing dependent packages: kernel-modules-extra x86_64 5.19.6-200.fc36 @updates-released-local 3.4 M
The kernel-modules-extra has a few hundred packages only, and there isn't one for 5.19.9.