NFS root woes: No init found

[Brian Waite]

But my target believe it was able to correctly open the file because it is
parsing the header of the file to determine the file type. Also, If I remove
my /dev/console node from the nfsroot, then console_init() throws a warning
about no default console found, so it must have found the file on the remote
host right?
My NFS root is infact loacted in /home/ppc. I have used this exact NFS root to
bring up an eval board.


Thanks
Brian
On Thursday 05 December 2002 3:50 am, Dan Vatca wrote:
>
> On Thursday 05 December 2002 00:36, Brian Waite wrote:
> > I tried that but things look pretty happy. Here is the output I get with
> > tcpdump -vvv -s 1500 host seblade2
> >
> > I know this NFS root is set up because other PPC boxes use it for NFS
> > root. I am pretty stumped.
> >
> > 17:32:19.528377 seblade2.800 > dayton.sunrpc:  [udp sum ok] udp 56 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 84)
> > 17:32:19.528732 dayton.sunrpc > seblade2.800:  [udp sum ok] udp 28 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 56)
> > 17:32:19.559211 seblade2.800 > dayton.sunrpc:  [udp sum ok] udp 56 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 84)
> > 17:32:19.559469 dayton.sunrpc > seblade2.800:  [udp sum ok] udp 28 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 56)
> > 17:32:19.579903 seblade2.800 > dayton.32771:  [udp sum ok] udp 56 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 84)
> > 17:32:19.585120 dayton.32771 > seblade2.800:  [udp sum ok] udp 60 (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 88)
> > 17:32:19.585790 seblade2.159747 > dayton.nfs: 100 getattr fh Unknown/1
> > (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 128)
> > 17:32:19.585865 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159747: reply ok 96 getattr DIR
> > 40755 ids 0/0 sz 4096  (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 124)
> > 17:32:19.586681 seblade2.159748 > dayton.nfs: 100 fsstat fh Unknown/1
> > (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 128)
> > 17:32:19.586781 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159748: reply ok 48 fsstat [|nfs]
> > (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 76)
> > 17:32:19.615317 seblade2.159749 > dayton.nfs: 108 lookup fh Unknown/1
> > "dev" (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 136)
> > 17:32:19.615396 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159749: reply ok 128 lookup fh
> > Unknown/1 DIR 40755 ids 0/0 sz 77824 nlink 17 rdev ffffffff fsid 306
> > nodeid 246c8 a/m/ctime 1039040869.000000 1039039592.000000
> > 1039039592.000000  (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 156)
> > 17:32:19.616315 seblade2.159750 > dayton.nfs: 112 lookup fh Unknown/1
> > "console" (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 140)
> > 17:32:19.616353 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159750: reply ok 128 lookup fh
> > Unknown/1 CHR 20600 ids 504/0 sz 0 nlink 1 rdev 501 fsid 306 nodeid 247e4
> > a/m/ctime 1015747714.000000 1027439792.000000 1039029441.000000  (DF)
> > (ttl 64, id 0, len 156)
> > 17:32:19.628334 seblade2.159751 > dayton.nfs: 108 lookup fh Unknown/1
> > "bin" (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 136)
> > 17:32:19.628400 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159751: reply ok 128 lookup fh
> > Unknown/1 DIR 40755 ids 0/0 sz 4096 nlink 2 rdev ffffffff fsid 306 nodeid
> > 1d38b9 a/m/ctime 1039040880.000000 1026358299.000000 1030454764.000000
> > (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 156)
> > 17:32:19.629347 seblade2.159752 > dayton.nfs: 116 lookup fh Unknown/1
> > "ash.static" (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 144)
> > 17:32:19.629382 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159752: reply ok 128 lookup fh
> > Unknown/1 REG 100755 ids 0/0 sz 522456 nlink 1 rdev ffffffff fsid 306
> > nodeid 1d38f8 a/m/ctime 1039040880.000000 1015669398.000000
> > 1030454763.000000  (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 156)
> > 17:32:19.640029 seblade2.159753 > dayton.nfs: 112 read fh Unknown/1 4096
> > bytes @ 0 (DF) (ttl 64, id 0, len 140)
> > 17:32:19.640181 dayton > seblade2: (frag 51580:1244 at 2960) (ttl 64, len
> > 1264) 17:32:19.640192 dayton > seblade2: (frag 51580:1480 at 1480+) (ttl 64,
> > len 1500) 17:32:19.640201 dayton.nfs > seblade2.159753: reply ok 1472
> > read REG 100755 ids 0/0 sz 522456 nlink 1 rdev ffffffff fsid 306 nodeid
> > 1d38f8 a/m/ctime 1039041139.000000 1015669398.000000 1030454763.000000
> > (frag 51580:1480 at 0+) (ttl 64, len 1500)
>
> - From your output it seems that your system cannot find a /bin, /dev, and
> other things on that nfs mountpoint. But the nfs seems to be up and
> responding with read errors ... Are you sure you did not overlooked a path?
> Because the /home (as I saw from a previous email ...) is very strange
> place to hold a filesystem root ...
>
> Dan.


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/